The Energon Pub

Dead Metal wrote:No mistake, mistakes are like spelling errors and such like, but the boxes sported the Transmetals logo, and the transmetals explanation in 3 different languages on the boxes I had plus the shelves advertised them as Transmetals Beast Wars toys. I did that formatting on purpose as that's about the same way as they were advertised in the store I bought them from.

And again all I can say is thank you.

Would you even say its possibly a mistake????

Dead Metal wrote:Strange those unimportant things from 10 years ago I remember yet I can't remember the damn Spanish grammar I need at school .

Same here with my german and french

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:
Gold (Noun) yes is metalic.

Gold (Adjective) does not have to be metalic.

Being gold doesn't automatically make it metal just like being orange doesn't automatically make something a fruit.

Gold may not have to be metalic in every case.....but it just so happens to be in this case.

The Gold paint on Silverbolt was metalic looking.

So whats the point here???

Looks like you need to get your sight checked. There's nothing metalic looking about Silverbolt.

Saber Prime wrote:True but Megatron turning into a Dragon had nothing to do with the Vok or their devices yet he's still marked as a Transmetal 2.

I didnt bring it up to argue just to make a point....but we dont no the extent of the Volcanos involvement in the mutation.

Primal begane to mutate almost directly after placing the spark of G1 Prime in his body.....on the other hand BWs Megatron did not mutate for a few minutes [story time] later when he was throw into the lava pit.

No less Megatron even said something that would leave one to believe that that it was the pit that may have made the mutation possible.

Actully you're wrong again. BW Megatron apperently has this weird tentilce around his own spark. He used it to grab G1 Megatron's spark and you can see him suffering simular effects to Optimus' mutation before the spark is fully secure in his chamber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZV-uQ9A ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op7vJRKMP7M

As you can see both characters suffered some ill effects first before either one of them showed any signs of physical change.

3 min. 25 sec. was about how long it took for Optimus to fully mutate to his new form. (or maybe just untill Cheetor actully noticed.) Every time he was shown inbetween thoughs moments he was a mix mash of his two Transmetal forms.

4 min. 23 sec. was about the time it took Megatron to change between his Transmetal forms.

So there's a min. and 2 sec. difference pluse I'm estimating based on their screen time from when they got the original spark to when another character first takes notice to their new form.

We allso never got to see what was happening to Megatron while in the lava but it's possible he could of been changing as a mix mash of his two forms before the mutation was completed same as Primal. That's really the only thing that can't be confirmed because we never got to see in the lava but everything else that happened to Primal durring his transformation allso happened to Megatron durring his.

Saber Prime wrote: Optimal Optimus and Megatron are basically the same so one of them has to be labled wrong and I'd bet my life that it's Optimal Optimus.

I wont deny that its possible....but I dont see what that has to do woth the debate.

But I do fint the idea that he was mislabeled unlikely.......if it is so then he was mislabeled across the board, on the catalog check list,the box label, the instruction sheets and the bio card on the back.

I find it a little bit hard to swallow that they made that many mistakes......and I dont think he was called a TM2 on the show.

I don't think Megatron was ever called a Transmetal 2 on the show either. I belive only the characters who gained their powers through the Vok were given that title. Most was from that alien device Megatron used to create Dinobot 2, only Tigerhawk was directly effect by the Vok but all had conections to them it seems.

Optimus and Megatron were the only ones that didn't have any Vok influance. And weather the volcano effected Megatron or not, it wasn't the Vok that put that volcano there. The Vok were responsible for alot of the alien technoligy found on Earth (I say alot of because the transformers themselfs are technically alien technoligy as well. Not to themselfs but it is Earth they're on, anything not native to the planet is alien. All a matter of perspective.) and they were responsible for the Energon found on Earth but there's no reason to belive they created volcanos.

Saber Prime wrote:A couple pages back you said and I'm paraphraiseing because I'm tired and too lazy to find the exact quote, that "Optimal Optimus was INTENTINALLY packaged as a Transmetal." And you made that claim with absolutly no proof. If you were talking about a different toy you didn't make it verry clear and you still didn't provide any proof that it was intentional so it really wouldn't make a difference what you were talking about.

Well your paraphrasing incorrectly because I said no such thing.

And its a good thing I'm not as lazy as you are and I can back up my claim.What I said was the site I linked you, "TFU" , catagorized the toy as a non TM2 because it was not labeled as a TM2.

I said nothing about wether it was a mistake on Hasbros part or not.

Not according to how Hasbro labeled the toy.And that site normally goes by how the toys were labeled.

Optimal Optimus was not labeled as a Transmetal 2.

1. that wasn't even the correct quote.

2. I shouldn't post at 5 am.

Went back and looked and you actully did clarify you were talking about the repaints not Optimus.

I never said anything about wether Hasbro INTENTINALLY packaged him as a as a Transmetal.

So stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It was 5 am, I was tired, you know about my issues with sleeping, and I got two different comments mixed up.

Saber Prime wrote: And I didn't put words in your mouth. As I exsplained abouve you did make the claim that Hasbro intentionally packaged him that way.

You are putting words in my mouth because as I just proved I said no such thing.

Actully you didn't prove that sence non of your quotes had anything to do with the comment I was talking about. However I was still in error there mixing up a comment about the repainted figures with Optimus.

I'll say it again... I shouldn't post at 5 am.

Saber Prime wrote:If you're saying I'm wrong for useing the show definitions then you are saying the show definitions are wrong.

No...what I'm saying is that the shows definitions and origins are right for the shows universe.

But they are not right for every TF universe.

And I'm saying that you were wrong for trying to pass the shows definitions and origins as the "ONLY" definitions and origins.

You full well know that Transformers,just like other fictions that are told in different mediums, would have different definitions and origins depending on the comic,toon or toylines story.

You were wrong for casting the toons definitions and origins as the defining one..

Nope because as Kur allready proved that same definition was allso used on toy packageing. This isn't even a case of different universes, it's all the same universe. BEAST WARS!

Saber Prime wrote:What difference does it make weather I sited the show or not. I've asked you this like 3 times now and you've still never answered it.

The difference is TF is not just a show....so if your going to use a "Show defintion" you should site it.

Again, don't act like we've just met. You know I don't read comics, you know I only watch the cartoons. The simple fact that I'm the one saying it you should allready know I'm refering to the show. If it was anyone else makeing the same argument I'd just exsplain my point of view and be done with it but you allready know me.

Saber Prime wrote:The show definitions do trump all.

Thats total BS and you know it.

Depends on the situation. In this particular case, no it isn't. There are no other definitions for what a Transmetal is.

Kur even proved the toy packageing used the same definition as the show. So thoughs two repaits in no way shape or form fit ANY description of what a Transmetal should be.

As I said when we started this they could pass as Transmetal 2s sence the 2s don't seem to share any physical traits with eachother.

Do the G1 Dinobot cartoon origin super seed that of the the G1 marvel comics, or that of the toyline, or that of Dreamwaves or IDW's comics.

No they do not.

Your not going to fine anyone to agree with you there at all.

Face it you lost the argument and now your wineing.

Transformers is just not a cartoon.....the toyline and comics are just as imporant and not a one can trump the others.

Poor comparison. Dinobots actully do have multiple origins. Do I prefer the show origin over the comics? Yes. Do I deny that the comic origin exsists? No.

But in the case of what defines a Transmetal, there is only one definition. It was used on the show AND THE TOY PACKAGEING.

When I asked you what the toy definition of a Transmetal was you gave your own opinion as an answer and stated it as a fact. Your answer was that all Transmetals have Metalic paint apps. In no way has that ever been given as an offical definition.

I allso asked you what in toy terms was the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2. You have not even answered that question.

Simple fact is the toy definitions are no different than the show. It doesn't make a difference if there are 2 repaint figures packed as Transmetals when they don't fit Hasbro's offical definition of a Transmetal. Despite what the lable says the actual definition of a Transmetal is...

1. They must have 3 modes.

2. They must have a robotic beast mode.

3. They must have an organic robot mode.

4. They must have a vehicle mode. The vehicle mode fans argue is just a beast mode with gimic attachments but officaly as defined by Hasbro that is a vehicle mode. It may not look like anything but that's how it's listed on the Transmetals video game and the toy instructions.

Saber Prime wrote: They're the only definitions at all.

Again BS.

If it's BS then what's the other definition and don't give me that metalic paint bit again, that's your definition not an offical one.

Saber Prime wrote: That was the entire point in asking you what in toy defitions was the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2. You didn't have an answer so abviously there's no such thing as a toy definition.

Excuse me????

Hen did you ask me for the toy universe definitions for the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2?????

Hmmm... I belive I asked it. I did say I was haveing problems getting loged out while posting and lost a post, it's possible I wrote it in there.

At any rate I'll ask now then if I didn't ask before.

What in toy definitions is the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2.

Saber Prime wrote:Another reason why it shouldn't matter weather or not I sited the show. How long have we been speaking online? You should know by now I only go by the show, don't act like you just met me.

And that alone proves my point.

It doesnt matter wether I know you and should know what your talking about....its about all the others that read these post.

And when you make a post, claiming something is a fact, you should be right about it.

And the simple fact is you werent completely right.

You used a show definition and claimed it was the only definition.

And the simple fact is that you were wrong.

If someone else wants to step in who doesn't yet understand me then they can step in and say something on their own. I'd calmly exsplain my opinion on the matter and that would be the end of it.

You really don't need to step in and start an arguement with me when you know damn well what I was talking about.

Besides you still have never shown proof of a second definition. And even if there was that still wouldn't make the first definition wrong. You might want to choose your words more carefully because someone can not be wrong for saying something unless what they said is wrong. What I said was a correct definition of what defines a Transmetal weather there's another definition or not the definition I gave is still an offical Hasbro definition. If you got a problem with me useing it then you have a problem with the definition it self and I'd really for the last time like to be kept out of your own personal war with Hasbro.

The definition you gave me for what qualifys as a Transmetal was no in any way shape or form the offical word of Hasbro. It was your own damn opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact with the only evidence to suport you being a damn box lable. Transmetal is not defined on that lable no matter how much you want it to be.

Transmetal has been defined on the show and the toys with the same definition. Kur quoted that definition from Hasbro. That is the one and only definition, it's the only proof I need to prove I'm right.

Thoughs repaints, despite what the lable says, do not fit Hasbro's one and only offical statement of what a Transmetal is defined as, so by Hasbro's definition they are NOT Transmetals.

They are labled Transmetals but that doesn't make them so. Haveing an organic looking robot mode, a robotic looking beast mode, and something they call a vehicle mode makes a transformer a Transmetal, 3 things that the two repaint figures do not share therefore they are not Transmetals.

No matter what way you look at it. The LABLE is not a definition. All the lable says is one word, Transmetal. The lable does not say what that word means.

I've told you what it means and you say it's wrong. If you want to continue to belive that then fine, that's your opinion but offically, that's the word of Hasbro agenst your opinion so it really don't matter what you think, I'm still right.

Saber Prime wrote: I would seriously doubt that they'd make the same error on a toy and on the show so if the show confirmed what the toy said I'd belive it but it doesn't so I'm more inclinded to belive the show is true than a stupid box.

Ofcourse.....because you can never admit to a mistake of any kind.

Of course I can. I've addmitted to mistakes when you've proved beyond any doubt that I'm wrong but that's not the case here.

You can't prove I'm wrong and you know damn well I'm right. You knew I was right before you even started this argument and if you want to continue this argument you can do it on your own unless you wanna stop trying to prove the definition wrong and start trying to prove there's another definition.

You're never going to prove me wrong on this because you know the definition is an offical statement from Hasbro. You may be able to prove there's a second definiton but I doubt it.

In this particular case, you are wrong for trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

Saber Prime wrote: the show actully has a definition and damn it, I'm going to use it.

Go right ahead and use it......if you like.

But the shows definitions do not trump the toylines.

As Kur pointed out, the toy line used the same definition. And as I've said several times, haveing multiple definitions doesn't make me wrong for useing the one I prefer if the one I'm useing is still a correct definition I can't be wrong without the definition being wrong.

You might want to rephraise your posts because this whole you've been trying to prove me wrong, you've been trying to prove Hasbro was wrong for creating that definition in the first place. That's something you can never do is prove Hasbro was wrong about the definition of a word they created. You may try to prove there's a second definition if you like but if you want to keep claiming the first definition was wrong you're never going to succeed and I'm just going to stop responding.

Saber Prime wrote: The whole metalic paint thing was YOUR definition not the toys.

That wasnt a defintion.

I said that the metalic paint was a trait that they all shared.....and they do.

That wasn't a definition? In that case then when I asked what the toy definition of a Transmetal was, why did you give that as your answer?

I asked "What is the toy definition of a Transmetal?" You answered "They all have metalic paint apps." Buy giveing that answer to that question you did in fact claim that was the definition of a Transmetal. If you want to change your answer go ahead, just don't state your opinions as facts this time.

Saber Prime wrote:It's not BS, it's something you've told me to do in several past arguments. If you're going to make a bold claim like that, back it up.

I did back it up.

When? Where? All you keep giveing me is garbage. Boxes, not words. Nothing you've provided has backed your claims.

Saber Prime wrote: You get me some shred of undisputable evidence to back up your claims then fine. Till then you have nothing.

I got more then you buddy....face it.

All you got is the show and your opinion.

And we already know that the shows dont ever trump the toyline or the comics.

I've got more than you.

I've got an offical statement from one of the show's creators, and a quote from Hasbro toy packageing posted by Kur.

You have a toy lable. You have ONE count them ONE word with no definition attached to it. One word on a box with a toy that doesn't match the definition of that word.

I'll say it again. You may have the murder weapon but I dusted it for finger prints and got the criminal to confess to his crime. Have fun trying to prove that suicide, the murderer was allready sentenced to death and you're the only one still in the court room.

Saber Prime wrote:Word of an Hasbro Emplyee vs. a Box

Box get's steped on, torn, and thrown in the trash. Person wins without breaking a sweat.

Your box is in the trash, you're WRONG! Have a nice day.

To beging with Ben was not a Hasbro employe.....he worked as a writter for the show.

That's funny. OK maybe he wasn't directly working for Hasbro in that some Hasbro exec was signing his pay checks but Hasbro did willingly hire that company to produce their series so somewhere down the line he still counts as a Hasbro employee.

He's getting paid to write scripts for a Hasbro owned franchise, by a company getting paid by Hasbro to produce said Hasbro owned franchise.

Everything Transformers eventually leads back to either Hasbro or Takara.

Saber Prime wrote:Lets put it this way. If you were shown two different web sites with completly different information on an upcomming movie. They're both fan sites you're familiar with but one you know has proven to be more reliable than the other. Which one are going to belive is true?

I dont see how that line of questioning relates to this debate.

Yes you do, you just don't want to addmit that for once you're wrong.

Just to humor you, it relates in this way. You asked why I don't trust toy packageing as facts. My first responce was "do you seriously have to ask" because I've allready told you the answer to that question about 10 times.

When something is frequently misslabled or full of faulse information you have a had time beliveing anything produced weather it's true or not. If you were given the choice to belive one fan site over another I know damn well you're more likely to belive the one with the better track record for haveing accurate information over the site that's constintly flooded with rumors and opinions as facts.

The show definition in this sinario is the more reliable web site.

Box lables are the equivilant of siteing a site known for posting rumors as facts.

Unless you can back them up with a more realiable source you have little to no evidence and you have not been able to back up your claims. You only keep provideing the same evidence over and over again.

I'm really getting tired of playing this game with you so I'm putting this debate to rest till you can come up with more evidence to suport your case.

Now through your boxes in the trash, I'm done with exibit A, move on to exibit B or drop the case allready.

Saber Prime wrote:Beast Wars as a series was allways verry clear in their story. The toys were not. So the boxes don't mean ****.

And thats where your wrong.

Even if the BW cartoon was perfect it doesnt change the very nature of what Transformers is.

They are always different universes....the comic,the toyline and the toons.

One universes origins and definitions to not supper seed themselves upon the others.

So no matter how clear the toons origin may have been.....it does not change the comic origin or the toylines origins.

You still have not provided any alternative origins so I fail to see what that argument has to do with this debate.

Saber Prime wrote: Actully come to think of it, the name mix ups in the Unicron Triligy are probly the only cases where I'd go by the toy packing over the show sence the show was never consistant in their names.

Dude thats like the "Rumble is blue and frenzy is Red argument".

Yeah, it still applys here. The show says one thing, the toy says another.

You're claiming I'm putting one as fact and saying the other as faulse. I just pointed that out to prove that's not the case.

It just so happens that in the case of what qualifies as a Transmetal, there has only ever been one definition given. It was on the cartoon, and I wasn't even aware of it till Kur pointed it out but it was allso on the toy packageing.

If this was a case of accepting one universe over another then you need to provide a different universe definition which you have not done.

Saber Prime wrote:Oh my gawd... I never thought I'd see the day when YOU of all people would try to pass off your opinions and assumetions as an offical statement by Hasbro but there it is.

Its not my opinion that Hasbro labled at least 5 figures with out a 3rd mode as TMs.

Its not my opinion that they re-painted 2 figures to better fit the TM line and packed them with videos of the first TM episodes.

Thats all fact.

I like how you removed the quote that was in reply to. Here it is again.

No its the definition that has been set forth by the labeling of cretin toys by Hasbro.

Your opinion.

That makes it Hasbros definition wether they acknowledge it publicly or not.

If they didn't announce it publicly then you can't make that claim saying that's how Hasbro defines a Transmetal. How can they redefine Transmetal if that new definition was never made public? That is your opinion not their definition.

Saber Prime wrote:Nope, offical box art doesn't prove a damn thing. It's as much proof as a weapon with no finger prints.

Its proof that it was deliberate.

Its as much as a confession.

Nope. Hasbro actully acknowalgeing that they changed the original definition of transmetal is a confession. You even said it yourself, they never publicly announce any redefined Transmetal. All they did was repaint and repackage old toys.

A toy box with a single word on it is suerficial evidence.

Saber Prime wrote:All you have is a knife and your own assumptions, I'm the one who dusted for fingerprints and found the evidence. You still think it's suicide because the knife was found in the victum's hand. That knife was planted there, someone elses fingerprints are on that knife not the victums. (I'm haveing to much fun with this annaligy.)

You still havent proved anything.

You keep saying you have provided evidence but where is it????

You site other mistakes made but that doesnt prove this is a mistake.

Sorry buddy but theres to much going for them to be a simple mistake.

Too much going for them? What's going for them? They're boxes. You rip them open, pull the toys out, and through the box away.

Hasbro can make all the toy packages they want but it won't change what they defined before thoughs toys were ever reliced. According to Hasbro's offical definition of a Transmetal, thoughs repackaged toys are NOT Transmetals. Their packageing may say they are but that packageing doesn't change the offical definition which was writen before thoughs toys were ever even reliced. No new or revised definition was reliced with them so I don't care if it says Transmetal 100 times on their packageing it's still wrong, they are not transmetals.

You claim Hasbro redefined what a Transmetal was when they reliced thoughs toys. That is your opinion not a fact. If there's actully a new definition of what it means to be a Transmetal then what is it. I asked you that before and you said metalic paint. Again, your opinion, not fact.

Saber Prime wrote:Both don't in any way shape or form fit what the show's creators say is an Transmetal.

Which is irrelevant since the shows defontions do not trump the toylines defintons or that of a comic.

The toy line and the comic don't even have a seperate definition or if they do what are they and why didn't you bring them up when I first asked you insted of bringing up that metalic paint BS.

Saber Prime wrote: And neither one is backed by anything other than it's own box.

Dude there backed by a number of seprate things...

Really like what?

The paint job

Hasbro has never defined a Transmetal as just haveing a metalic paint job and not all Transmetals even have a metalic paint job. Most do but there are a few who do not.

The box

Which I allready said was BS.

The Sub-sub group they were placed in

That's not evidence that's what you're trying to prove.

The cross marketing of the video

I have the 10th aniversary versions of the original BW Optimus Primal and Megatron (and yes by original I do mean show original not Bat Primal and Alligatortron) They came with a DVD of the episode "Possession". The video it comes with doesn't really have anything to do with the toys you're buying.

Possession was all about G1 Starscream takeing controll of Waspinator.

The two figures may of come with a video but what difference does that make. What was the point of packageing a video of the TV show with characters who never appeared in that TV show and don't even fit that TV show's description of what they're supose to be.

Any 1 alone may be a mistake......
2 may be a coincidence [spelling]
3 suggests a pattern
but 4 is evidence of intent.

I'll give you two. The box and the video. The others were your own opinion and the verry thing you're trying to prove, they weren't evidence.

A similar thing was done with Beast Machines....KB toys were giving a video of the first episodes to run with the sub-title....."Battle for the sparks" with the toys that shared the same sub-title like this one.....



The only difference with KB's offer was that you needed to buy more then one from the line or spend a certin amount on the line.

Or are you going to tell me that was a mitake as well....or that cross marketing is a mistake made by computers or machines too????

I bought that exact figure from KB toys, that deal was never made that I can remember and that picture is too small to read if there's any kind of deal like you mentioned on it.

Saber Prime wrote:I'll say it again. I don't care what the gawd damn box says, if an actual person working at Hasbro says different then the box is wrong. And hey, according to Ben Yee, the box is indeed WRONG.

When did Ben say anything about the box???

More to the point did Ben ever say that the cartoon had more standing then the other medeia that TF partakes in????

Even more to the point when has anyone at Hasbro said that the cartoon trumps all????

To my knowledge the answer to all of those questions is "NEVER".

To begin with Ben did not work for Hasbro....he was a story writter for the show thats only credited for 1 episode......but even if he worked on all of them it wouldnt matter.

Transformers has never been just one set universe with one set of origins and definitions.

The cartoon,comic and toyline origins have always had differences since the days of G1.

Look at the G1 Dinibots for one.....toy and show definitions and origins were completely different.

Neither trumped the other.

Both stand alone on their own merits.

So stop trying to use the show and Ben Yee as a "Trump Card" buddy because your failing to prove your point.

While all that is true it's all exsplained abouve.

The simple fact that he worked on the cartoon makes him a Hasbro employee even it was only for a short time he still has conections with Hasbro.

And yes toon and comic do useually tend to have different definitions and origins of things but that's not the case here. Kur has proved that even the toy line has used the SAME definition from the cartoon.

You have been talking for days about there being a different definition then the one given on the show but you have shown no evidence of an alternate definition. You have stated your own personal definition as fact. And you continue to argue your opinions as fact with no evidence to suport you.

There is one, and only one offical definition given by the show that was allso used on toy packageing.

Your definition that Transmetals are just toys with metalic paint is YOUR definition and YOURS alone. Nothing SAID by Hasbro has been ANNOUNCED to suport you. Something DONE by Hasbro suports your OPINION but it does not represent HASBRO'S OFFICAL WORD.

Saber Prime wrote:-=edit=-

I just read Cyber-Kun's post and he even confimered I'm right. That little quote in his post was from a toy package and was the same definition set by the shows creators.

I'm right, you're wrong. I've got the offical word of a show creator and the toy box descriptions! You have... two repaints and they're even more so now, clearly misslabled boxes.

I was questioning weather or not they were before but it's obvious now, they were.

How does that even come close to proving they were mislabeled??????

Your argument was that the toy had different definitions than the show. The quote shows the toy line had the SAME definition as the show. You fail.

As I said from the begining Hasbro broadened the defintion when they included the re-paints.

No where on their toy packageing does it say "This is the new definition of what a Transmetal is"

They say Transmetal on them but they are not defined as Transmetals so they are not Transmetals.

Please show me one shread of evidence that shows they were mislabled.

Show me one shred of evidence to that shows they weren't?

I have already proven by the box's,the sub category,the repaint scheme and the cross marketing that they arent mislabled.

The sub catigory isn't proof it's what you're trying to prove.

That's like saying because someone is called Killer that's proof they killed someone.

The name itself is not proof of anything. The name is what you're trying to prove.

And you are wrong for saying that the shows defintions and origins trupm all others.

Nope. I never said the show definitions trump all others. There are no others. You've never proved the exsistance of any other definitions. So if the others are your own then yes show definitions do trump all others.

You have not once shown any shred of evidence that there is multiple defintions for a Transmetal. When asked what the other defintion was you responded with an opinion as your answer and stated it as a fact. All Transmetals have metalic paint apps was your answer.

Not only am I right but you are wrong for stating your OPINIONS as facts.

As I said too Cyber-Kun this sitruation is no different then when Hasbro broadened the defintion of a combiner.

First a combiner was a TF that had the ability to combiner with others to form a Super-robot.

Then Hasbro made the Micromaster combiners that only combined to form a vehicle.

We've had this conversation before. What's the root word of Combiner? Combine. Hasbro didn't define it, a combiner just has to be able to combine, that's it.

Transmetals is a word entirely made up by Hasbro. Lets break it down. Trans = The energywave that created them was a transwarp exsplosion. Metals = All Transformers are made of metal, they're robots. So what's a Transmetal? It's whatever the hell Hasbro says it is and they've never said anything other than the definition in Cyber-Kun's post.

The only other definition for a Transmetal was not given by Hasbro, it was given by YOU. It's your definition, not Hasbro's.

Saber Prime wrote:I was questioning weather or not they were before

Is great.....you questioned your own convictions even if it was for a second...

You cam out of your little world and learned something.

I'm happy for you

Cheap repaints they may be.....but they were intentional cheap repaints.

Oh I questioned but not for the reasons you think. I was questioning weather or not there was another definition in case maybe you had other evidence which you did not. You never provided any more evidence to suport you than what you innitially said in your first post.

Bascially I went from somewhat open, to not impresses, to slightly amused you were still pulling the same argument, to getting verry tired of seeing the same evidence repeated when I asked for new evidence about 10 times, and then finally got new evidence from someone else suporting me.

You're like the worlds worst lawer. When the case isn't going your way the trick is to introduce NEW evidence not continuasly get stuck on exhibit A. Remind me never to hire you as my lawer.

Is Kur suppose to be me? That's not my username, sorry to be fussy.

As for my definition that was asked, its hard to pinpoint. I usually go with the information that as established first, whether it be comics or cartoon. With G1, there was a substantial amount of comic info, probably more then the G1 cartoon, so choice of origins and such is debatable. But for Beast Wars, the cartoon is really the only sources of fiction for the series (except for a few comics here and there), and this debate is between a television show and packaging for a toyline for the show, personally, I'd go with the show and say that the 2 repaints were thrown in to flesh out the line a bit, and Hasbro themselves probably don't care.

Cyber-Kun wrote:Is Kur suppose to be me? That's not my username, sorry to be fussy.

Sorry about that. I'm not good with names. Or typeing. Or spelling. And I have little to no memory. For some reason I thought your name was Kur. I'll get it right eventually.

As for my definition that was asked, its hard to pinpoint. I usually go with the information that as established first, whether it be comics or cartoon. With G1, there was a substantial amount of comic info, probably more then the G1 cartoon, so choice of origins and such is debatable. But for Beast Wars, the cartoon is really the only sources of fiction for the series (except for a few comics here and there), and this debate is between a television show and packaging for a toyline for the show, personally, I'd go with the show and say that the 2 repaints were thrown in to flesh out the line a bit, and Hasbro themselves probably don't care.

I agree with you. Allthough when multiple origins or definitions are present I just go with whichever one I like best. The 3 Constructicon origins for example, I prefer the one with Omega Supreme that they were reprogramed.

The Transformers over all origin, I tend to stick with their Quintesson creators.

I don't ignore the other origins exsist, I just prefer one origin over another.

Saber Prime wrote:Looks like you need to get your sight checked. There's nothing metalic looking about Silverbolt.

Dude look at the pictures again....



The gold on his legs and wings is metalic.

See an eye doctor if you cant make it out.

Saber Prime wrote:Actully you're wrong again.

Really??? lets see......

Saber Prime wrote: BW Megatron apperently has this weird tentilce around his own spark. He used it to grab G1 Megatron's spark and you can see him suffering simular effects to Optimus' mutation before the spark is fully secure in his chamber.

Boy are you desperate to win here......

No..... what you see is G1 Megatrons spark going while wile it was in the "weird tentilce" as you called it.

BW Megatron could not control it.

He was trying to hold it and the spark was flipping around like a strong fish in a net.

Watch your own vid again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZV-uQ9A ... re=related

Saber Prime wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op7vJRKMP7M

As you can see both characters suffered some ill effects first before either one of them showed any signs of physical change.

What I see is that Primal had no problem controling the Spark....but then again G1 Prime wasnt an insane nut.

And Primal started moneing in pain and began to mutate rather quickly....BW Megatron did seem incapacitated but he did not beging to mutate for what seem some time.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Saber Prime wrote:3 min. 25 sec. was about how long it took for Optimus to fully mutate to his new form. (or maybe just untill Cheetor actully noticed.) Every time he was shown inbetween thoughs moments he was a mix mash of his two Transmetal forms.

4 min. 23 sec. was about the time it took Megatron to change between his Transmetal forms.

Your talking actual time.....I'm talking about the impression of the time that labsed between all the scenes.

It would have taken much more time then we saw for the events to have unfolded the way they did.

And by "events" I mean BW Megatron being carries outside and dumped, Trangolis [spelling?] and Quickstrike geting back inside and trying to re-program Teletran 1.

then the both of them getting back outside before Megatron emerged from the lava.

That must have taken a hell of a lot more time then it took Primal to mutate.

Seriously how much time do you think those events would have taken based on what we saw?????

I know that ones a hard one to answer because time laps issues are open to interpretation.

Saber Prime wrote:We allso never got to see what was happening to Megatron while in the lava

Thats my point....we didnt see and we what went on nor can we know for sure the extent the lava bath had on BW Megatrons change.

Saber Prime wrote: but it's possible he could of been changing as a mix mash of his two forms before the mutation was completed same as Primal.

Possible yes but theres no way of knowing for sure.

Saber Prime wrote: That's really the only thing that can't be confirmed because we never got to see in the lava but everything else that happened to Primal durring his transformation allso happened to Megatron durring his.

Again Primal did begin to mutate much earlier then Megatron did.

Saber Prime wrote:I don't think Megatron was ever called a Transmetal 2 on the show either.

I'm not sure either but I will do the research but in the meantime I will say this.......Transmetal 2 Megatrons Bio does refer to him having a new TM 2 form.

Saber Prime wrote: I belive only the characters who gained their powers through the Vok were given that title. Most was from that alien device Megatron used to create Dinobot 2, only Tigerhawk was directly effect by the Vok but all had conections to them it seems.

I'm not going to look that one up.

Saber Prime wrote:Optimus and Megatron were the only ones that didn't have any Vok influance. And weather the volcano effected Megatron or not, it wasn't the Vok that put that volcano there.

Whats your point????

I dont think I said anything about the Vok or their influence.

Saber Prime wrote:and they were responsible for the Energon found on Earth but there's no reason to belive they created volcanos.

Again whats your point????

Saber Prime wrote:1. that wasn't even the correct quote.

2. I shouldn't post at 5 am.

Went back and looked and you actully did clarify you were talking about the repaints not Optimus.

I never said anything about wether Hasbro INTENTINALLY packaged him as a as a Transmetal.

So stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It was 5 am, I was tired, you know about my issues with sleeping, and I got two different comments mixed up.

Ahh then forget abuot it....we all make mistakes sometimes

Saber Prime wrote:Nope because as Kur allready proved that same definition was allso used on toy packageing.

And that alone proves nothing.

Hasbro expanded on what a transmetal is when they included the repaints....just as Hasbro expand on what a combiner was when they included the micromaster combiners or when they added to Unicrons history.

Hasbro has done it before and I'm sure they will do it again.

Now try to tell me how the situations are different????

Saber Prime wrote: This isn't even a case of different universes, it's all the same universe. BEAST WARS!

But its not all the same universe.

Saber Prime wrote:Again, don't act like we've just met. You know I don't read comics, you know I only watch the cartoons. The simple fact that I'm the one saying it you should allready know I'm refering to the show. If it was anyone else makeing the same argument I'd just exsplain my point of view and be done with it but you allready know me.

Dont pretend were having a private conversation.

It doesnt matter if you read the comics or follow the toyline bios as a source.

If your going to say somethings a "FACT" with out siteing the source then it should be a universal fact.

If your "Fact" is media specific then you should site the media it is specific too when you post it as a fact....particular when your trying to use that fact to say someone else is wrong.

Dont act like your new to the fandom and are unaware that there are sometime differences between toy,toon and comic origins.

Saber Prime wrote:Depends on the situation.

No it doesnt ever.

No show can trump the toyline,no comic can trump the show or any mix of the medias.

Each media for TF stands on its own merits.

And truth be told theres a good argument for saying that the Toylines bios should out weight the comics and the toon but I dont wont to get into that now.

Saber Prime wrote: In this particular case, no it isn't. There are no other definitions for what a Transmetal is.

Again Hasbro expanded the definition by including the repaints....and the repaints dont have a 3rd mode.

Deny it to yourself if you want but you can not dny the fact that they exsist.

Its no different then what Hasbro did with the combiners.

Saber Prime wrote:Kur even proved the toy packageing used the same definition as the show. So thoughs two repaits in no way shape or form fit ANY description of what a Transmetal should be.

They may not.....but fitting in is not a required.

Hasbro says they are Transmetals so thats what they are.

There are also the 3 Mc Donals transmetal figures that dont fit the "so called description" either but they are still called transmetals....just like the 2 repaints.

Deal with it.

Saber Prime wrote:As I said when we started this they could pass as Transmetal 2s sence the 2s don't seem to share any physical traits with eachother.

I agree they fit better with the idea of a TM2.....but that doesnt change the fact of how they were labeled.

Saber Prime wrote:Poor comparison.

Hardly.

You claimed that the toons defintions and origins trump that of a cartoon or toyline.

I brought up the Dinos because they have a rich and vastly diffent origins in each media.

But doesnt matter if they have hudge differences in their origins of just one minor detail......each origin is media specific and stands on its own merits.

Saber Prime wrote: Dinobots actully do have multiple origins. Do I prefer the show origin over the comics? Yes. Do I deny that the comic origin exsists? No.

So how do you decide when a toon trumps and when it doesnt???

When you say so?????

Saber Prime wrote:But in the case of what defines a Transmetal, there is only one definition. It was used on the show AND THE TOY PACKAGEING.

Which they expanded on.....as Hasbro tends to do

Saber Prime wrote:When I asked you what the toy definition of a Transmetal was you gave your own opinion as an answer and stated it as a fact. Your answer was that all Transmetals have Metalic paint apps. In no way has that ever been given as an offical definition.

Dude its not 5.am now and your still mixing up post.

I gave the "metalic paint apps" answer to the question of "What trait do all TM's share" not as a toy definition.

As I said before I dont even remember you asking me what the toys definitions were....so if you asked me I must have missed it or misunderstood the question.

Saber Prime wrote:I allso asked you what in toy terms was the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2. You have not even answered that question.

Like I said above I must have missed some of your questions....and to be honest I'm not sure how to reply to the question.

I could post the description that was on one of the boxs of TM 2 toy but it really doesnt adress the differences between them what so ever....so I dont see the point.

Saber Prime wrote:Simple fact is the toy definitions are no different than the show.

The simple fact is Hasbro expanded on their original defintion.

Wether they did so with the intent or it was the result of not foreseeing the result of including the repaints is an other question.

But the fact that Hasbros deliberate action of packing the repaints as TMs alters their official definition of a TM.

Wether you like it or not.

Saber Prime wrote: It doesn't make a difference if there are 2 repaint figures packed as Transmetals when they don't fit Hasbro's offical definition of a Transmetal.

Actually it does.

Just like any retcon or change to an official statement.....the ongoing explanations alter the original one.

And this is an argument I've seen you use before in the case of the G1 chosen one.The movie clearly establishes that HotRod is the one and only chosen one.....but the continuing story [season 3] does not bear that out, at the very least it suggest that there are more then 1 chosen one or that Hotrod never was.

Its the same here.....Hasbro made an official definition.....but that definition is either called into question of expanded on by Hasbros inclusion of the repaints and the Mc Donalds figures.

Saber Prime wrote: Despite what the lable says the actual definition of a Transmetal is...

1. They must have 3 modes.

2. They must have a robotic beast mode.

3. They must have an organic robot mode.

4. They must have a vehicle mode. The vehicle mode fans argue is just a beast mode with gimic attachments but officaly as defined by Hasbro that is a vehicle mode. It may not look like anything but that's how it's listed on the Transmetals video game and the toy instructions.

And again there are 5 figures that are labeled transmetals that dont fit all of those critria.....particular the 3rd mode.

Thats just a plain and simple fact.

Which is what I started out saying.

Saber Prime wrote:If it's BS then what's the other definition and don't give me that metalic paint bit again, that's your definition not an offical one.

Again the "metalic paint" reply was not said as a defintion....I said its a trait they all share.

And the evidence of a different definition is in the labling of figures as TMs when they didnt have a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:Hmmm... I belive I asked it.

You may have....I just dont remember it.

Saber Prime wrote: I did say I was haveing problems getting loged out while posting and lost a post, it's possible I wrote it in there.

Maybe

Saber Prime wrote:At any rate I'll ask now then if I didn't ask before.

What in toy definitions is the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2.

I kind of answered his above.The box doesnt really adress the differences between them.At least not the way I read it.

If you want I'll dig out a box tomorrow when ZI get home from the doctors and type what I read.

Saber Prime wrote:If someone else wants to step in who doesn't yet understand me then they can step in and say something on their own. I'd calmly exsplain my opinion on the matter and that would be the end of it.

And if they take your word for it and dont question you they would be as ignorant as you are to the greater complexity of the TF universes.

Saber Prime wrote:You really don't need to step in and start an arguement with me when you know damn well what I was talking about.

And I didnt.

I corrected you and sited example.

You turned this into a 3 page [?] debate because you cant stand being correct.

Here look at what started this....

Saber Prime wrote:

Emperor Primacron the 1st wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:That's not a hunchback, that's just your standard back kibble that nearly ALL Transformers have. There's a verry, verry, VERRY short list of Transfromers without Back Kibble.

TM2 Cheetor is among the Transformers without back kibble, he actully is a hunchback.

Back Kibble = The extra parts from your alt mode get left on your back because there's nowhere else to put them.

Hunchback = Your mold is just designed that way.

TM2 Cheetor is the only Transformer (I'm aware of) to have a true hunchback design. His back is hunched in both modes, the hump is not made of extra kibble from the transformation. It's just there!

Transmetal Spittor and RID Slapper were hunchbacks, if I believe.

Um... Techically both thoughs characters share the same mold.

If you want to count them seperatly what about... all the sudden can't remember his name. Wasn't there a black Wal-Mart exsclusive of Cheetor's TM2 mold with a different name?

Which I replied too...

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:

Emperor Primacron the 1st wrote:
Transmetal Spittor and RID Slapper were hunchbacks, if I believe.

Um... Techically both thoughs characters share the same mold.

Technically they dont.

Transmetal2 Spittor and RID Slapper share the same mold but not regular Transmetal Spittor.

Regular Spittor
http://www.tfu.info/1997/Predacon/Spittor/spittor.htm

Transmettle Spittor
http://www.tfu.info/1998/Predacon/Spittor/spittor.htm

Transmettle 2 Spittor
http://www.tfu.info/1999/Predacon/Spittor/spittor.htm

RID Slapper
http://www.tfu.info/2001/Predacon/Slapper/slapper.htm

Which no matter what I was right about.

the toys were labled as such no matter what the reason for it.

So if you dont want to argue why did you go on after this point???

Saber Prime wrote:Besides you still have never shown proof of a second definition.

the proof is in the pudding.....its in the deliberate actions taken by Hasbro in the labeling of the repaints and the Mc Donalds figures as TMs.

Saber Prime wrote: And even if there was that still wouldn't make the first definition wrong.

Never said it would.....but it would expand on it.

Saber Prime wrote: You might want to choose your words more carefully because someone can not be wrong for saying something unless what they said is wrong.

I'm not the one who need to chose their words carfully.

You were wrong when you said this.....

Saber Prime wrote: the one you refer to as his "regular transmetal" isn't a Transmetal figure.

You were wrong because It is a Transmetal figure....Hasbro says so.

You were also wrong when you said this....

Saber Prime wrote:However a True Transmetal figure has 3 modes, Beast, Vehicle (or rather something called a Vehicle but just looks like the beast mode with vehicle parts attached), and Robot. The lack of that 3rd mode really dissqualifies him as being a Transmetal.

And you were wrong because...

A] it is not you that defines what a "TRUE" transmetal is....Hasbro does and they say that the repaint is a transmetal.

B] there are 5 figures in totle that dont have a 3rd mode

So I dont need to be cafefull with my words.

Saber Prime wrote: What I said was a correct definition of what defines a Transmetal weather there's another definition or not the definition I gave is still an offical Hasbro definition.

And you were wrong for saying that the repaints werent "True Transmetals" when they are....because Hasbro says so.

Saber Prime wrote: If you got a problem with me useing it then you have a problem with the definition it self and I'd really for the last time like to be kept out of your own personal war with Hasbro.

The problem is you saying that the others arent TMs when they are.....nothing more.

Saber Prime wrote: The definition you gave me for what qualifys as a Transmetal was no in any way shape or form the offical word of Hasbro. It was your own damn opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact with the only evidence to suport you being a damn box lable. Transmetal is not defined on that lable no matter how much you want it to be.

What definition , That I supposedly gave, are you talking about????

Saber Prime wrote: Transmetal has been defined on the show and the toys with the same definition. Kur quoted that definition from Hasbro. That is the one and only definition, it's the only proof I need to prove I'm right.

Thats the only proof you need for your little world.

But its not proof of practice.And it doesnt prve your right.

The 2 repaints and the 3 c Donals figures dont have a 3rd mode and yet they are offical called transmetals by Hasbro.

Which means the official definition has been retconed.

Saber Prime wrote: Thoughs repaints, despite what the lable says, do not fit Hasbro's one and only offical statement of what a Transmetal is defined as, so by Hasbro's definition they are NOT Transmetals.

And yet they are.

And each repaint and Mc D's figure stands as an official statement by Hasbro.

So again I got 5 to your 1.

Saber Prime wrote: They are labled Transmetals but that doesn't make them so.

Yes it does.

And BTW that statement is the exact opposite of the argument you made about Mutants and the Spiderman cartoon debate.

The cartoons [X and Spidy] said a number of times that to be a Mutant you had to be born one....but you argued that since one character was said to be becoming a mutant that then it is possible to be a mutant with out being born as one.

And if your having a hard time seeing how the anolugy works....

In one argument you said it is so because it was said by an offical source......

and now in this argument your saying its not so even thou it comes from an official source.

Boy you'll say just about anything to win an argument wont you???

Saber Prime wrote: Haveing an organic looking robot mode, a robotic looking beast mode, and something they call a vehicle mode makes a transformer a Transmetal, 3 things that the two repaint figures do not share therefore they are not Transmetals.

The repaints were "repainted" to look robotic in beast mode and organic in robot mode.

What they dont have is a 3rd mode,,,,nor do the Mc Ds figures.

All 5 are still called TMs by Hasbro.

And that makes them so.

Saber Prime wrote: No matter what way you look at it. The LABLE is not a definition. All the lable says is one word, Transmetal. The lable does not say what that word means.

That is very true.

But the deliberate action of labling the repaints and the McD's figures as TMs alters the official definitions.

Saber Prime wrote: I'm still right.

Fantasy's are great to have budd

Saber Prime wrote: Of course I can.I've addmitted to mistakes when you've proved beyond any doubt that I'm wrong

Hardly

Saber Prime wrote: You can't prove I'm wrong

I have....by the simple fact that they were labled TM.

Saber Prime wrote: and you know damn well I'm right.

Your not

Saber Prime wrote: You knew I was right before you even started this argument

You werent then....and your not now.

Saber Prime wrote: and if you want to continue this argument

only if you want too

Saber Prime wrote: you can do it on your own

Where's the fun in that????

Saber Prime wrote: unless you wanna stop trying to prove the definition wrong and start trying to prove there's another definition.

No one ever said the defintion was wrong....only you for saying that the others werent "TRUE" TM's when they are....because Hasbro says they are.

Saber Prime wrote: You're never going to prove me wrong on this

Already have budd....like I always do

Saber Prime wrote: because you know the definition is an offical statement from Hasbro. You may be able to prove there's a second definiton but I doubt it.

The proof is in the pudding....Didnt I say that already

Saber Prime wrote: In this particular case, you are wrong for trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

I passed of no opinions.

I sited that there are TMs that dont have 3 modes and I proved my point 5 times.

Saber Prime wrote: As Kur pointed out, the toy line used the same definition.

And as Hasbro pointed out......they expanded on it by repainting and relabling figures as TM that did not have a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote: And as I've said several times, haveing multiple definitions doesn't make me wrong for useing the one I prefer if the one I'm useing is still a correct definition I can't be wrong without the definition being wrong.

You can be wrong for saying that the others arent TMs when they are.

And thats why you were wrong.

Saber Prime wrote:
You might want to rephraise your posts because this whole you've been trying to prove me wrong, you've been trying to prove Hasbro was wrong for creating that definition in the first place. That's something you can never do is prove Hasbro was wrong about the definition of a word they created. You may try to prove there's a second definition if you like but if you want to keep claiming the first definition was wrong you're never going to succeed

Again the definition isint wrong....its how you used it.Thats what I said from the begining.

Saber Prime wrote: and I'm just going to stop responding.

You've made that threat before.....and yet here we are.

Saber Prime wrote: That wasn't a definition?

Nope

Saber Prime wrote: In that case then when I asked what the toy definition of a Transmetal was, why did you give that as your answer?

That wasnt the question that I answered when I brought up the metalic paint.

I dont remeber you ever asking me [up till that point anyway] what the toy defintions was.
.
I brought up the paint thing in in reply to a question about what traits all TM share.

Saber Prime wrote: I asked "What is the toy definition of a Transmetal?" You answered "They all have metalic paint apps."

As i said you did not ask that question....and the paint thing was brought up in reply to statements about traits and characteristics of the toys in question.

Saber Prime wrote: Buy giveing that answer to that question you did in fact claim that was the definition of a Transmetal.

See above.

Saber Prime wrote: If you want to change your answer go ahead, just don't state your opinions as facts this time.

Theres no change in an answer that was not given.

You did not ask me [at that time] for a toy definition.

You brought up a list of characteristics and I said not all of the toys that carry the name TM have the characteristics you listed.

I then said....

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:the only characteristic that is universal with Transmetals is a metallic paint job.

I said noting about a toy definition.....at that time anyway.

Saber Prime wrote: When? Where? All you keep giveing me is garbage. Boxes, not words.

There are words on the boxes......and those words are..... TRANSMETALS

Saber Prime wrote: Nothing you've provided has backed your claims.

Actually the box and the deliberate action by Hasbro does in fact back up my claim.

Saber Prime wrote:I've got more than you.

Prove it.

Saber Prime wrote:I've got an offical statement from one of the show's creators,

Again he's listed as a consultancy not a creator.....and even if he was it wouldnt matter......the sghow does not trump Hasbro

Saber Prime wrote:and a quote from Hasbro toy packageing posted by Kur.

Which is retconed by Hasbros actions of nameing 5 figures TMs that dont fit that official statement.

And again as it stands I have 5 official statement by Hasbro to your one.

Each figures nameing is an official statement.

Saber Prime wrote:You have a toy lable.

No I have 5 toy lables.

Saber Prime wrote: You have ONE count them ONE word with no definition attached to it.

Again I have 5 words.

5 separate nameings of TM toys with out a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote: One word on a box with a toy that doesn't match the definition of that word.

5 separate toys that were individually named and labeled as TMs.

Saber Prime wrote:I'll say it again. You may have the murder weapon but I dusted it for finger prints

And I'll say it again....you dont have $h!+.

Saber Prime wrote: That's funny. OK maybe he wasn't directly working for Hasbro in that some Hasbro exec was signing his pay checks but Hasbro did willingly hire that company to produce their series so somewhere down the line he still counts as a Hasbro employee.

And again he wouldnt.

Hasbro wouldnt be paying for his SSI nor would they be paying taxs on his employment....so he's not a Hasbro employee at all.

Saber Prime wrote:He's getting paid to write scripts

He's credits for 1 script

Saber Prime wrote: for a Hasbro owned franchise, by a company getting paid by Hasbro to produce said Hasbro owned franchise.

Which makes Hasbro a client.But that does not translate into Ben a Hasbro employee.

Saber Prime wrote:Yes you do, you just don't want to addmit that for once you're wrong.

No I honestly got lost in the point you were trying to make.

And I never have issues admiting I'm wrong.

Saber Prime wrote:Just to humor you,

What ever

Saber Prime wrote: it relates in this way. You asked why I don't trust toy packageing as facts.

When did I ask that????

Saber Prime wrote: My first responce was "do you seriously have to ask" because I've allready told you the answer to that question about 10 times.

I kind of remember that statement.....I just dont remember asking the question

Saber Prime wrote:When something is frequently misslabled or full of faulse information you have a had time beliveing anything produced weather it's true or not. If you were given the choice to belive one fan site over another I know damn well you're more likely to belive the one with the better track record for haveing accurate information over the site that's constintly flooded with rumors and opinions as facts.

Now I see what you were trying to say

Thank you for breaking it down.

Maybe in the middle of this long debate I mixed up one thing you were saying with an other.

Saber Prime wrote:The show definition in this sinario is the more reliable web site.

But this is where you keep getting it wrong.

Its not an issue of two sites reporting conflicting accounts about the same event........its 2 sites reporting on 2 different events.

Beast Wars is not one universe its at the very least 2 if not more.The toyline universe includes a hell of a of info that the show never showed us.

So trying to compare the two as different sites reporting on the same event is in error by its very nature.

Saber Prime wrote:I'm really getting tired of playing this game with you so I'm putting this debate to rest till you can come up with more evidence to suport your case.

I dont need anymore evidence.

Its a fact...the repaints are TMs.

Saber Prime wrote:You still have not provided any alternative origins so I fail to see what that argument has to do with this debate.

Again its "Expanded" origins....and Hasbro provided it by nameing the repaints and the figures from Mc D's as TMs.

Saber Prime wrote:Yeah, it still applys here. The show says one thing, the toy says another.

And how does the toon over ride what the toys were named????

Saber Prime wrote:It just so happens that in the case of what qualifies as a Transmetal, there has only ever been one definition given. It was on the cartoon, and I wasn't even aware of it till Kur pointed it out but it was allso on the toy packageing.

Do I have to repeat it again????

Saber Prime wrote:If this was a case of accepting one universe over another then you need to provide a different universe definition which you have not done.

Because I dont have to....Hasbro did it by deliberately adding the 5 figures with out 3rd modes into the TM line.

Saber Prime wrote:I like how you removed the quote that was in reply to. Here it is again.

No its the definition that has been set forth by the labeling of cretin toys by Hasbro.

Your opinion.

No the end result of Hasbros delibrate action.

Saber Prime wrote:

That makes it Hasbros definition wether they acknowledge it publicly or not.

If they didn't announce it publicly then you can't make that claim saying that's how Hasbro defines a Transmetal.

I can by their action.

Its a retcon that gois into play by Hasbro deliberating adding figures that dont fit the prestablished critria.

Again its no different then what was done in G1 to the idea of a chosen 1.

Saber Prime wrote: How can they redefine Transmetal if that new definition was never made public?

By their actions....by making 5 different figures and nameing them TM when they clearly did not fit the established critra.

Saber Prime wrote: That is your opinion not their definition.

No it becomes their definition by retcon caused by their deliberate action.

And I say delibrate because its not just 1 case of a figure that does not fit the line....its 5 separate figures.

One might be a mistake and can be dismissed....but not 5.

Saber Prime wrote:Nope.

Yep

Saber Prime wrote: Hasbro actully acknowalgeing that they changed the original definition of transmetal is a confession.

I said "as much as a confession".

Saber Prime wrote: You even said it yourself, they never publicly announce any redefined Transmetal. All they did was repaint and repackage old toys.

Twice....and they also named 3 new McD's toys TMas as well.

those figures also do not have a 3rd mode.

again thats 5 figures that dont fit the established crtria.

Saber Prime wrote:A toy box with a single word on it is suerficial evidence.

You would be right....if it were only 1.

But its 5 different figures that were named TMs with out a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:Too much going for them? What's going for them? They're boxes. You rip them open, pull the toys out, and through the box away.

Not every toy collector throws the box's away buddy.

And I find it funny that your ready to cast out some of the words one one box but your clinging to other words on other box's.

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro can make all the toy packages they want but it won't change what they defined before thoughs toys were ever reliced.

Hasbros actions change that.

Saber Prime wrote: According to Hasbro's offical definition of a Transmetal, thoughs repackaged toys are NOT Transmetals. Their packageing may say they are but that packageing doesn't change the offical definition which was writen before thoughs toys were ever even reliced. No new or revised definition was reliced with them so I don't care if it says Transmetal 100 times on their packageing it's still wrong, they are not transmetals.

And yet according to Hasbro they are.

Not only them but so are the 3 MC D's figures.

Its called a "retcon"....look it up.

Saber Prime wrote:You claim Hasbro redefined what a Transmetal was when they reliced thoughs toys.

By the action itself.

Saber Prime wrote:The toy line and the comic don't even have a seperate definition or if they do what are they and why didn't you bring them up when I first asked you insted of bringing up that metalic paint BS.

Again you never asked.........and you already know why the metalic paint scheme was brought up.

Saber Prime wrote:Really like what?

Its all be listed a number of times already.

Saber Prime wrote:

The paint job

Hasbro has never defined a Transmetal as just haveing a metalic paint job

I never said Hasbro used that as a definition....but Hasbro did use a paint scheme on the repaints that made them fit better into the TM line.

Saber Prime wrote:and not all Transmetals even have a metalic paint job.

Yes they all do...they may not all be "reflective" or "chrome" but they all have metaic paint apps.

And yes gold,silver copper quilfy as metalic.

Saber Prime wrote: Most do but there are a few who do not.

Show me witch dont.

Saber Prime wrote:

The box

Which I allready said was BS.

Which is official word.

Saber Prime wrote:

The Sub-sub group they were placed in

That's not evidence that's what you're trying to prove.

The fact they they put them in a sub-group is evidence that they did it intentionally.

Its proof that Hasbro saw they they would be viewed as being different from the other TMs and had the forethought to place then within a special sub-group or TM's.

Saber Prime wrote:

The cross marketing of the video

I have the 10th aniversary versions of the original BW Optimus Primal and Megatron (and yes by original I do mean show original not Bat Primal and Alligatortron) They came with a DVD of the episode "Possession". The video it comes with doesn't really have anything to do with the toys you're buying.

Possession was all about G1 Starscream takeing controll of Waspinator.

And whats your point???

The 10 Any toyline was packed with different BW episodes to so that they can appeal to fans of the entire show and to hopefully grow a new audience for the entire show and line.

But the TM exclusives were packed with those particular TM episodes to cross market the TM toyline.....to grow further intreat in the TM line.

theres a big difference.

Saber Prime wrote:The two figures may of come with a video but what difference does that make. What was the point of packageing a video of the TV show with characters who never appeared in that TV show and don't even fit that TV show's description of what they're supose to be.

The point was to get the fans to by them.

Which was intentional.

Saber Prime wrote:I'll give you two. The box and the video. The others were your own opinion and the verry thing you're trying to prove, they weren't evidence.

Sorry but they were all intentionally done...which makes them all evidence.

Saber Prime wrote:I bought that exact figure from KB toys, that deal was never made that I can remember and that picture is too small to read if there's any kind of deal like you mentioned on it.

The deal wasnt on the packejing.

But it was made at every KB I went to back in NYC.....but it could have been a regional sale.

I have a handfull of the video to prove it.

I may still have the coupon...I'll look for it.

Saber Prime wrote:While all that is true it's all exsplained abouve.

Badly I might add

Saber Prime wrote:The simple fact that he worked on the cartoon makes him a Hasbro employee

No it doesnt

Saber Prime wrote: even it was only for a short time he still has conections with Hasbro.

Connections yes....employee no

Saber Prime wrote:And yes toon and comic do useually tend to have different definitions and origins of things but that's not the case here. Kur has proved that even the toy line has used the SAME definition from the cartoon.

And as you also are fully aware of......definitions are expanded upon when the story continues to be told.

Its been happening to the Tf universes since G1 and I doubt its going to change anytime soon.

Saber Prime wrote:You have been talking for days about there being a different definition then the one given on the show but you have shown no evidence of an alternate definition.

No I've been talking about how the definition was expanded on.

And it was by Hasbros deliberate including of 5 figures into the Tm line.

Saber Prime wrote: You have stated your own personal definition as fact.

Nope

Saber Prime wrote: There is one, and only one offical definition given by the show that was allso used on toy packageing.

See above

Saber Prime wrote:Your definition that Transmetals are just toys with metalic paint is YOUR definition and YOURS alone.

Again I never said that was a "DEFINITION".

Saber Prime wrote: Nothing SAID by Hasbro has been ANNOUNCED to suport you.

Their actions are the support.

Saber Prime wrote: Something DONE by Hasbro suports your OPINION but it does not represent HASBRO'S OFFICAL WORD.

Actully it does....because what was done was done in words.

Saber Prime wrote:Your argument was that the toy had different definitions than the show. The quote shows the toy line had the SAME definition as the show. You fail.

No my argument was that the defintions were expanded upon.

So you fail twice

Saber Prime wrote:No where on their toy packageing does it say "This is the new definition of what a Transmetal is"

It doesnt need to....the nameing of the 5 figures as TMs do that.

Saber Prime wrote:They say Transmetal on them but they are not defined as Transmetals so they are not Transmetals.

Hasbro says they are....deal with it.

You'll sleep much better.

Saber Prime wrote:Show me one shred of evidence to that shows they weren't?

I dont need to....I'm not making the claim its a mistake.

First you aske me if I wanted to

Saber Prime wrote:argue about a toy only character

I said that there were more then 1 and I proved that.

You then suggest my source and I was wrong because

Saber Prime wrote:that site isn't even accurate

Because Optimal Optimus was labled a TM2.

Which I'll leave alone but is highly unlikely.

So I provides pics of the actual box's of the figures that proves they were labled as TMs and then you want me to prove it wasnt a mistake..

Buddy its time you got off your A$$ and try to prove something for yourself.

If they are a mistake prove it....then prove why the McD's figuires are also a mistake.

as I said

I have already proven by the box's,the sub category,the repaint scheme and the cross marketing that they arent mislabled.

Saber Prime wrote:The sub catigory isn't proof

Its proof that Hasbro sought to make sure there was a difference between the repaints and the other TMs.

Otherwise why create a new sub-group????

Saber Prime wrote: Nope. I never said the show definitions trump all others.

Really????

Then whats this mean????

Saber Prime wrote: The show definitions do trump all.

Looks like you just contradicted yourself.

Saber Prime wrote: You've never proved the exsistance of any other definitions.

Again Hasbro actions did that.

Saber Prime wrote: You have not once shown any shred of evidence that there is multiple defintions for a Transmetal.

How many times do I have to say it.

The proof is in the pudding.

Saber Prime wrote: When asked what the other defintion was you responded with an opinion as your answer and stated it as a fact. All Transmetals have metalic paint apps was your answer.

As I said that was not the question you asked.

So stop trying to say you did.

Saber Prime wrote:We've had this conversation before. What's the root word of Combiner? Combine. Hasbro didn't define it, a combiner just has to be able to combine, that's it.

No Hasbro introduces the combiners in a facshion simular to to that of the TMs.

They said clearly that a combiner was a sub-team of characters that could combine into a super-robot.

They then later expanded the defintion to include teams that did not form a super-robot.

Saber Prime wrote: So what's a Transmetal? It's whatever the hell Hasbro says it is

Right...and Hasbro says the repaints are Transmetals.

Thanks for proving my point.

Saber Prime wrote: Oh I questioned but not for the reasons you think.

What ever the reason was....you questioned your convivtions and it was a step in the right direction for you.

Again I'm happy for you.

Saber Prime wrote:asked for new evidence about 10 times,

Again you never asked for a toy defintion?????

You only asked that about 10 times in the last 2 post....and then you only asked it as how it differesr from the defintions of a TM2.

Saber Prime wrote:You're like the worlds worst lawer. When the case isn't going your way the trick is to introduce NEW evidence not continuasly get stuck on exhibit A. Remind me never to hire you as my lawer.

When you learn to disprove exhibit A let me know.

Cyber-Kun wrote:As for my definition that was asked, its hard to pinpoint. I usually go with the information that as established first, whether it be comics or cartoon. With G1, there was a substantial amount of comic info, probably more then the G1 cartoon, so choice of origins and such is debatable. But for Beast Wars, the cartoon is really the only sources of fiction for the series (except for a few comics here and there), and this debate is between a television show and packaging for a toyline for the show, personally, I'd go with the show and say that the 2 repaints were thrown in to flesh out the line a bit, and Hasbro themselves probably don't care.

Thankyou for responding.

Altho I wasnt asking you which you prefer but wether you think one cancels the other.

And while I agree...I think Hasbro did it to bolster the toyline and did not care one way of the other.....their actions do end up altering what defines a TM.

Saber Prime wrote:I agree with you. Allthough when multiple origins or definitions are present I just go with whichever one I like best. The 3 Constructicon origins for example, I prefer the one with Omega Supreme that they were reprogramed.

There really isint enought reason to see them as 3 different origins.

They really dont contradict each other as much as many seem to think.

Saber Prime wrote:I don't ignore the other origins exsist, I just prefer one origin over another.

But you do tend to refrance the ones you prefer and try to imply they are the only ones.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Looks like you need to get your sight checked. There's nothing metalic looking about Silverbolt.

Dude look at the pictures again....



The gold on his legs and wings is metalic.

See an eye doctor if you cant make it out.

I don't have to look at the Pictures, I have the toy. The gold is no more metalic looking than the grey.

Cheetor has metalic gold paint. Look at the difference.

Saber Prime wrote: BW Megatron apperently has this weird tentilce around his own spark. He used it to grab G1 Megatron's spark and you can see him suffering simular effects to Optimus' mutation before the spark is fully secure in his chamber.

Boy are you desperate to win here......

No..... what you see is G1 Megatrons spark going while wile it was in the "weird tentilce" as you called it.

BW Megatron could not control it.

He was trying to hold it and the spark was flipping around like a strong fish in a net.

Watch your own vid again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZV-uQ9A ... re=related

even if that's true how does that exsplain his being temporarily weakened right after long enough for Quickstrike (in controll of Optimal Optimus) to overpower him.

I'm not desperately trying to win here. Megatron and Optimus suffered from verry simular ill effects of holding a second more powerfull spark before they started to mutate.

Saber Prime wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op7vJRKMP7M

As you can see both characters suffered some ill effects first before either one of them showed any signs of physical change.

What I see is that Primal had no problem controling the Spark....but then again G1 Prime wasnt an insane nut.

Primal was thrown half way across the Ark when he first took Prime's spark inside him. You call that being able to controll it without a problem?

And Primal started moneing in pain and began to mutate rather quickly....BW Megatron did seem incapacitated but he did not beging to mutate for what seem some time.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

The time it took for Primal to show any physical signs of mutation was about the same as the time it took for Megatron to be thrown into the lava and as I said before we don't know what was happening to Megatron while he was submerged in lava.

Primal suffered some ill effects first and that was it. It cut to different characters and came back to him started to go into a mish mash of his two forms.

Megatron suffered simular ill effects and was allmost imediatly thrown in lava never to be seen again till his mutation had completed.

Saber Prime wrote:3 min. 25 sec. was about how long it took for Optimus to fully mutate to his new form. (or maybe just untill Cheetor actully noticed.) Every time he was shown inbetween thoughs moments he was a mix mash of his two Transmetal forms.

4 min. 23 sec. was about the time it took Megatron to change between his Transmetal forms.

Your talking actual time.....I'm talking about the impression of the time that labsed between all the scenes.

It would have taken much more time then we saw for the events to have unfolded the way they did.

And by "events" I mean BW Megatron being carries outside and dumped, Trangolis [spelling?] and Quickstrike geting back inside and trying to re-program Teletran 1.

then the both of them getting back outside before Megatron emerged from the lava.

Tarantulas was the only one present outside the ark when Megatron emerged from the Lava so what are you talking about "both of them".

That must have taken a hell of a lot more time then it took Primal to mutate.

Seriously how much time do you think those events would have taken based on what we saw?????

I know that ones a hard one to answer because time laps issues are open to interpretation.

And the whole time Primal was mutateing Rhinox was working on trying to fix Prime's face. If you really want my opinion on which one I think took longer, I'd say, fixing Prime's face.

Pluse there seemed to be alot more going on durring the time Primal was changeing than when Megatron was. Scenes were cutting between 3 different instances in Primal's case but in Megatron's it focused mainly on the Arachnids.

Saber Prime wrote:We allso never got to see what was happening to Megatron while in the lava

Thats my point....we didnt see and we what went on nor can we know for sure the extent the lava bath had on BW Megatrons change.

Your point got lost in the translation somewhere. I agreed with you a while back about the lava but it's effect on him really doesn't change much. The only thing we didn't get to see was if he went into a mix mash stage of mutation like Primal did.

Saber Prime wrote: That's really the only thing that can't be confirmed because we never got to see in the lava but everything else that happened to Primal durring his transformation allso happened to Megatron durring his.

Again Primal did begin to mutate much earlier then Megatron did.

As far as I can tell, no he didn't. Both seemed to be feeling the effects of the sparks from the verry instant they had the sparks inside them. Megatron seemed to be suffering ill effects just from holding the Spark where Primal did not but I belive that's because Primal had the Matrix in his hands where as BW Megatron was holding G1 Megatron's spark with a tenticle that came from his spark chamber. Or in simple terms, they were holding the sparks differently.

Saber Prime wrote:Optimus and Megatron were the only ones that didn't have any Vok influance. And weather the volcano effected Megatron or not, it wasn't the Vok that put that volcano there.

Whats your point????

I dont think I said anything about the Vok or their influence.

My point is that it's possible Megatron was misslabled as a Transmetal 2.

We know for a fact that Optimal Optimus and Dragon Megatron have simular origins so if one is a Transmetal then so is the other. If one is a Transmetal 2 then so is the other. The question is which one are they.

And BTW you did bring up the Volcano when I mentioned the Vok which sugests you were implying the Vok are responcible for the volcano being there in the first place.

Anyway, just because it's easier to tell them apart in converstation I'd prefer to just say they were TM2s but I supose if a TM2 requires Vok influance then we could just call them Optimal and Dragon so they don't get mixed up with their Transmetal forms.

Hasbro says they are Transmetals so thats what they are.

A box says they are Transmetals. Hasbro said no such thing.

Again, by your reasoning a BLACK ENERGON Unicron in ARMADA packageing must be ORANGE because the BOX says so.

Saber Prime wrote:Poor comparison.

Hardly.

You claimed that the toons defintions and origins trump that of a cartoon or toyline.

I brought up the Dinos because they have a rich and vastly diffent origins in each media.

But doesnt matter if they have hudge differences in their origins of just one minor detail......each origin is media specific and stands on its own merits.

It's a poor comparison because the Dinobots actully do have multiple different origins. So do the Constructicons. But Transmetals have ONE count them ONE writen definition, ONE writen description, ONE writen origin.

Despite what the box says on any Transformer, nothing has been said to suport thoughs lables.

Saber Prime wrote: Dinobots actully do have multiple origins. Do I prefer the show origin over the comics? Yes. Do I deny that the comic origin exsists? No.

So how do you decide when a toon trumps and when it doesnt???

When the other so called origin has no proof of it's verry exsistance.

It's verry simple. If you can answer this question with multiple different offical answers then there are different definitions.

What is a Transmetal? A transmetal is a Transformer from the Beast Wars erra, created by a transwarp exsplosion, with 3 modes, a robotic looking beast mode, a vehicle mode, and an organic looking robot mode.

What other definition is there? The only other definition I know of is the metalic paint one but that's not even an offical definition, that was your own opinion of them.

Saber Prime wrote:When I asked you what the toy definition of a Transmetal was you gave your own opinion as an answer and stated it as a fact. Your answer was that all Transmetals have Metalic paint apps. In no way has that ever been given as an offical definition.

Dude its not 5.am now and your still mixing up post.

I gave the "metalic paint apps" answer to the question of "What trait do all TM's share" not as a toy definition.

As I said before I dont even remember you asking me what the toys definitions were....so if you asked me I must have missed it or misunderstood the question.

You missunderstood the question. That was the verry question. You may have not understood what I ment, I rephraised it later on but then you just danced aroud the question to avoid giving an answer because you knew there wasn't one.

Saber Prime wrote:I allso asked you what in toy terms was the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2. You have not even answered that question.

Like I said above I must have missed some of your questions....and to be honest I'm not sure how to reply to the question.

I could post the description that was on one of the boxs of TM 2 toy but it really doesnt adress the differences between them what so ever....so I dont see the point.

That's BS, you don't want to answer because you know you're wrong and the answer would prove you wrong.

The point plain and simple, is that if non of the toy descriptions match thoughs characters then not only is the show definition the only definition but it allso proves they are not transmetals and there's not one description anywhere that suports them as such.

Saber Prime wrote: Despite what the lable says the actual definition of a Transmetal is...

1. They must have 3 modes.

2. They must have a robotic beast mode.

3. They must have an organic robot mode.

4. They must have a vehicle mode. The vehicle mode fans argue is just a beast mode with gimic attachments but officaly as defined by Hasbro that is a vehicle mode. It may not look like anything but that's how it's listed on the Transmetals video game and the toy instructions.

And again there are 5 figures that are labeled transmetals that dont fit all of those critria.....particular the 3rd mode.

Thats just a plain and simple fact.

Which is what I started out saying.

And again, non of that proves me wrong because their lables do not change that definition. There is not, nor has there ever been a second definition for what it means to be a Transmetal.

Saber Prime wrote:If it's BS then what's the other definition and don't give me that metalic paint bit again, that's your definition not an offical one.

Again the "metalic paint" reply was not said as a defintion....I said its a trait they all share.

And the evidence of a different definition is in the labling of figures as TMs when they didnt have a 3rd mode.

That doesn't answer the question and I'm betting there isn't an answer because there isn't a second definition.

Saber Prime wrote:At any rate I'll ask now then if I didn't ask before.

What in toy definitions is the difference between Transmetal and Transmetal 2.

I kind of answered his above.The box doesnt really adress the differences between them.At least not the way I read it.

If you want I'll dig out a box tomorrow when ZI get home from the doctors and type what I read.

Please do.

Saber Prime wrote:If someone else wants to step in who doesn't yet understand me then they can step in and say something on their own. I'd calmly exsplain my opinion on the matter and that would be the end of it.

And if they take your word for it and dont question you they would be as ignorant as you are to the greater complexity of the TF universes.

Take my word and belive what? That I have an opinion? That I only watch the cartoons and don't read the comics? You're saying they shouldn't belive me when I say I don't read comics?

You're not makeing any sence again, apperently no one should belive anything I say even when it's about myself or they'll become ignorant?

Saber Prime wrote: Transmetal has been defined on the show and the toys with the same definition. Kur quoted that definition from Hasbro. That is the one and only definition, it's the only proof I need to prove I'm right.

Thats the only proof you need for your little world.

But its not proof of practice.And it doesnt prve your right.

The 2 repaints and the 3 c Donals figures dont have a 3rd mode and yet they are offical called transmetals by Hasbro.

Which means the official definition has been retconed.

So what is the new offical definition then? You're really makeing this more complicated than it needs to be. All you have to do to prove your point is answer that question but insted you just wanna dance around it and provide the lables as your only evidence over and over again.

Saber Prime wrote: Thoughs repaints, despite what the lable says, do not fit Hasbro's one and only offical statement of what a Transmetal is defined as, so by Hasbro's definition they are NOT Transmetals.

And yet they are.

And each repaint and Mc D's figure stands as an official statement by Hasbro.

So again I got 5 to your 1.

You're really bad at math. You got 2 out of 30 that don't fit that definition. Doesn't mean jack squat till you can tell me what the other definition is.

Saber Prime wrote: They are labled Transmetals but that doesn't make them so.

Yes it does.

And BTW that statement is the exact opposite of the argument you made about Mutants and the Spiderman cartoon debate.

The cartoons [X and Spidy] said a number of times that to be a Mutant you had to be born one....but you argued that since one character was said to be becoming a mutant that then it is possible to be a mutant with out being born as one.

And if your having a hard time seeing how the anolugy works....

In one argument you said it is so because it was said by an offical source......

and now in this argument your saying its not so even thou it comes from an official source.

Boy you'll say just about anything to win an argument wont you???

That's a horrible annaligy.

For the Spiderman debate that was said by an offical source.

This was not. You have not given any offical source. I've asked you several times for an offical statement and you have not given one. What you have given, is a box, garbage, something that gets torn open and thrown away.

Even in the Spiderman debate you never gave an offical statement proveing the show wrong.

So if anything all your comparison shows is that twice you've made a claim without backing it up.

Saber Prime wrote: Haveing an organic looking robot mode, a robotic looking beast mode, and something they call a vehicle mode makes a transformer a Transmetal, 3 things that the two repaint figures do not share therefore they are not Transmetals.

The repaints were "repainted" to look robotic in beast mode and organic in robot mode.

What they dont have is a 3rd mode,,,,nor do the Mc Ds figures.

All 5 are still called TMs by Hasbro.

And that makes them so.

No they are not called Transmetals by Hasbro. They are labled as Transmetals on their boxes. There is a difference.

One is an offical writen statement by a person. The other is a stupid box that you really need to through away and leave it in the dumpster for the trash to pick up.

Saber Prime wrote: unless you wanna stop trying to prove the definition wrong and start trying to prove there's another definition.

No one ever said the defintion was wrong....only you for saying that the others werent "TRUE" TM's when they are....because Hasbro says they are.

You said the definition was wrong when you said I was wrong for useing it. I can't be wrong if I'm useing a correct definition. The only way I can be wrong for useing it is for the definition itself to be wrong.

You can say I'm wrong for saying it's the only definition but you can't say I'm wrong just for useing that defition unless you're claiming the definition itself is wrong.

If you're going to claim I'm wrong for saying it's the only definition then what's the other definition?

Saber Prime wrote:
You might want to rephraise your posts because this whole you've been trying to prove me wrong, you've been trying to prove Hasbro was wrong for creating that definition in the first place. That's something you can never do is prove Hasbro was wrong about the definition of a word they created. You may try to prove there's a second definition if you like but if you want to keep claiming the first definition was wrong you're never going to succeed

Again the definition isint wrong....its how you used it.Thats what I said from the begining.

No what you said from the begining is that I was useing an incorrect definition of a word. As I just exsplained, phraise your posts better.

If I'm wrong for useing a definition then the definition I used is wrong. You can't claim one is wrong without the other. If that's not what you meant then fine but that's what you said.

Saber Prime wrote: In that case then when I asked what the toy definition of a Transmetal was, why did you give that as your answer?

That wasnt the question that I answered when I brought up the metalic paint.

I dont remeber you ever asking me [up till that point anyway] what the toy defintions was.
.
I brought up the paint thing in in reply to a question about what traits all TM share.

Same thing. The first, and untill proved otherwise, only definition of a Transmetal states they all share the same traits. So you sugest there's a different definition so I asked what traits they all share.

Saber Prime wrote: When? Where? All you keep giveing me is garbage. Boxes, not words.

There are words on the boxes......and those words are..... TRANSMETALS

That's not a definition, that's the word you're defineing. So define it allready, I'm getting impatiant.

Saber Prime wrote:and a quote from Hasbro toy packageing posted by Kur.

Which is retconed by Hasbros actions of nameing 5 figures TMs that dont fit that official statement.

And again as it stands I have 5 official statement by Hasbro to your one.

Each figures nameing is an official statement.

You are really bad at math. You have 2 out of 30... I said this allready...

Saber Prime wrote:If this was a case of accepting one universe over another then you need to provide a different universe definition which you have not done.

Because I dont have to....Hasbro did it by deliberately adding the 5 figures with out 3rd modes into the TM line.

Hasbro did what? What the hell is "it" I don't know what the hell you're talking about because you either refuse to or can't answer a simple question.

You do have to provide a different universe definition because you're the one claiming there is a different definition.

Saber Prime wrote: How can they redefine Transmetal if that new definition was never made public?

By their actions....by making 5 different figures and nameing them TM when they clearly did not fit the established critra.

That's exactly my point. They don't fit the established critra so therefore they're not Transmetals.

Saber Prime wrote: That is your opinion not their definition.

No it becomes their definition by retcon caused by their deliberate action.

And I say delibrate because its not just 1 case of a figure that does not fit the line....its 5 separate figures.

One might be a mistake and can be dismissed....but not 5.

You only have 2 and action does not = new definition.

Saber Prime wrote:A toy box with a single word on it is suerficial evidence.

You would be right....if it were only 1.

But its 5 different figures that were named TMs with out a 3rd mode.

Any amout of boxes, doesn't matter. It's just a word with no new definition attached to it so untill it has a new definition the old one still stands.

Saber Prime wrote:Too much going for them? What's going for them? They're boxes. You rip them open, pull the toys out, and through the box away.

Not every toy collector throws the box's away buddy.

And I find it funny that your ready to cast out some of the words one one box but your clinging to other words on other box's.

What words am I "clinging to" The whole Downshit, Cliffjumper thing? Yeah if I used the show names how would know who I was talking about, they switched names at least once in the cartoon that I can remember if not more.

There's verry few things where I'd take the box over the cartoon. How about Armada Sparkplug. Again, in the cartoon he was most offten refered to as Leader-1 but then so was Megatron's Mini-con, they can't both have the same name, how would you tell them apart in a conversation? Optimus' Mini-con and Megatron's Mini-con?

Saber Prime wrote:I'll give you two. The box and the video. The others were your own opinion and the verry thing you're trying to prove, they weren't evidence.

Sorry but they were all intentionally done...which makes them all evidence.

The act of murder is not evidence to murder. You can't just say a murdeed happed and submit that as evidence unless you're a witness to it which you're not.

Saber Prime wrote:I bought that exact figure from KB toys, that deal was never made that I can remember and that picture is too small to read if there's any kind of deal like you mentioned on it.

The deal wasnt on the packejing.

then why did you post a picture of him in his package. You made it seem like there was some significance to the picture while you were talking about some deal going on at KB toys.

Saber Prime wrote: Something DONE by Hasbro suports your OPINION but it does not represent HASBRO'S OFFICAL WORD.

Actully it does....because what was done was done in words.

WORD only one, with the same old definition attached to it.

Saber Prime wrote:Your argument was that the toy had different definitions than the show. The quote shows the toy line had the SAME definition as the show. You fail.

No my argument was that the defintions were expanded upon.

So you fail twice

That might be your argument now that you've been proven wrong but that was not your original argument.

Your original argument was that the toy line had a different definition from the shows definition, you were proven wrong.

Saber Prime wrote:They say Transmetal on them but they are not defined as Transmetals so they are not Transmetals.

Hasbro says they are....deal with it.

You'll sleep much better.

Hasbro has said no such thing, YOU say they are.

Saber Prime wrote:The sub catigory isn't proof

Its proof that Hasbro sought to make sure there was a difference between the repaints and the other TMs.

Otherwise why create a new sub-group????

What the hell are you talking about? You've never even mentioned this before or you weren't clear about it.

I was talking about Transmetals as I thought you were trying to say that them being placed in the Transmetals catigory was evidence that they were placed in then Transmetals catigory which as I said doesn't make any sence. How can you submit what you're trying to prove as evidence of what you're trying to prove?

Saber Prime wrote: Nope. I never said the show definitions trump all others.

Really????

Then whats this mean????

Saber Prime wrote: The show definitions do trump all.

Looks like you just contradicted yourself.

I allso said there was no other offical definitions and right before that little quote "in this particular case" which you cut out. Meaning that sence all the other definitions are not offical ones then the show definition does trump them all.

Pluse at the time I wrote that I wasn't fully aware what the hell trump even ment. I'm still not even sure that's actully a word, I was just guessing what it ment based on your useage.

Saber Prime wrote:asked for new evidence about 10 times,

Again you never asked for a toy defintion?????

You only asked that about 10 times in the last 2 post....and then you only asked it as how it differesr from the defintions of a TM2.

I didn't say I asked for toy definitions 10 times, I said I asked for new evidence 10 times which I did and every time I did you suplyed the same old evidence you gave in your first post.

What part of "new evidence" is hard to understand?

Saber Prime wrote:You're like the worlds worst lawer. When the case isn't going your way the trick is to introduce NEW evidence not continuasly get stuck on exhibit A. Remind me never to hire you as my lawer.

When you learn to disprove exhibit A let me know.

That's not how it works. You're supose to provide evidence to a case to prove your case not provide your evidence to prove you have evidence.

You suply exhibit A. Then you move on to exhibit B and so on till you've submitted all your evidence and if it all sugests the same thing then you've proved you case.

However sence you only have exhibit A you don't have enough evidence to suport your case.

I present exhibits B and C two different universe descriptions of what makes a Transmetal and look at that, they're the same.

Case closed, I win, can the jurry go home now?

Doing characters like Optimus Prime as a G2 Gobot was pretty bad.

Disappointagator

Saber Prime wrote:I don't have to look at the Pictures, I have the toy. The gold is no more metalic looking than the grey.

Cheetor has metalic gold paint. Look at the difference.

I've seen the difference...and like I said your mixing "chromed" with metallic.

Look at TM2 Cheetors silver parts on his tail.

That Silver is metallic as Silverbolts Gold is.

Saber Prime wrote:even if that's true how does that exsplain his being temporarily weakened right after long enough for Quickstrike (in controll of Optimal Optimus) to overpower him.

I thought I went into this but maybe I lost something after loseing part of my post.

I dont need to explain it because I dont dispute it.

I agree with you on that..
He was weakened like Primal was.

I'm not diputing that they has some simular aftereffects.

I'm just discussing the few differences.

Saber Prime wrote:Primal was thrown half way across the Ark when he first took Prime's spark inside him. You call that being able to controll it without a problem?

I ment controling the spark before he put it inside of him.

G1 Megatrons spark was uncontrolable the second it was set free.

Sorry for the mix up.

Saber Prime wrote:The time it took for Primal to show any physical signs of mutation was about the same as the time it took for Megatron to be thrown into the lava and as I said before we don't know what was happening to Megatron while he was submerged in lava.

Primal suffered some ill effects first and that was it. It cut to different characters and came back to him started to go into a mish mash of his two forms.

Megatron suffered simular ill effects and was allmost imediatly thrown in lava never to be seen again till his mutation had completed.

I diss agree with the "almost imediatly" part of your post but like I said its open to interpertation.

Time laps scenes always are.

I feel that it would have taken more time for them to take BW Megatron threw out the Ark and then outside of it.

Saber Prime wrote:Tarantulas was the only one present outside the ark when Megatron emerged from the Lava so what are you talking about "both of them".

I was typeing while I was watching something else.

I slipped and got a bit mixxed up.

But the point of that part was I believe the events that took place took longer then the events with Primal.

How much time do you would have taken place it the events were real???

Saber Prime wrote:Your point got lost in the translation somewhere. I agreed with you a while back about the lava but it's effect on him really doesn't change much. The only thing we didn't get to see was if he went into a mix mash stage of mutation like Primal did.

Your misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm trying to suggest that the Lava bath may be the primary reason for the outcome of the upgrade.

Saber Prime wrote: Megatron seemed to be suffering ill effects just from holding the Spark

That did not appear to be "ill effects" to me.

It looked more like a "strong fish on a line" to me.

Saber Prime wrote: where Primal did not but I belive that's because Primal had the Matrix in his hands

But we both know from a story stand point....that was not intended to be the matrix.

Saber Prime wrote:Or in simple terms, they were holding the sparks differently.

Seemingly

Saber Prime wrote:My point is that it's possible Megatron was misslabled as a Transmetal 2.

I guess thats possible

Saber Prime wrote:And BTW you did bring up the Volcano when I mentioned the Vok which sugests you were implying the Vok are responcible for the volcano being there in the first place.

You misunderstood why I brought up the Volcano.

I had not intention to link them to the volcano....I was trying to suggest that Megatron final TM 2 form may have been more influanced by the volcano then the merging of 2 sparks.

Not as a point for a debate but just to bring up the idea.

Saber Prime wrote:A box says they are Transmetals. Hasbro said no such thing.

Hasbro made the box.....they chose the paint scheme,they chose which characters and molds to repaint.

Sorry but those actions by Hasbro speak louder then words.

Saber Prime wrote:Again, by your reasoning a BLACK ENERGON Unicron in ARMADA packageing must be ORANGE because the BOX says so.

Which is a poor compaison because I doubt it says anywhere on the box "Black Unicron" or "Orange Unicron".

At best it shows the wrong picture and as you said thats not uncommon.

But bringing up an error is not going to disprove a deliberate action.

Saber Prime wrote:It's a poor comparison

Hardly

Saber Prime wrote: because the Dinobots actully do have multiple different origins.

Which is irrelevant.

The same rules apply.

Multiple origins or a few little differences you have to judge each media on its own.

Saber Prime wrote: So do the Constructicons.

Not particularly in the G1 toon....but they do threw out the other medeiums.

Saber Prime wrote:Despite what the box says on any Transformer, nothing has been said to suport thoughs lables.

There doesnt need to be.

Say it this way.....Lets say you create a character whos the last survivor of a dead planet [planet x].....you write a story about how he survived and everything.

Then By definition he's the last survivor right????

Then some time passes and you [or your son] created an other character from that same planet but you [or your son] never write about how he survived.

But yet you say he from that same dead planet and not related to the other character.

Your original definition then gets retconed to say there were 2 survivors.....wether it ever gets officially written or not.

Saber Prime wrote:When the other so called origin has no proof of it's verry exsistance.

The toys exist.....as do the fact that they were called TMS.

Saber Prime wrote:It's verry simple. If you can answer this question with multiple different offical answers then there are different definitions.

What is a Transmetal? A transmetal is a Transformer from the Beast Wars erra, created by a transwarp exsplosion, with 3 modes, a robotic looking beast mode, a vehicle mode, and an organic looking robot mode.

And again there are 5 figures that are called TMs that dont have a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:What other definition is there? The only other definition I know of is the metalic paint one but that's not even an offical definition, that was your own opinion of them.

As I said I never called that a definition....and I challenge you to show me where I did.

Saber Prime wrote:You missunderstood the question. That was the verry question. You may have not understood what I ment, I rephraised it later on but then you just danced aroud the question to avoid giving an answer because you knew there wasn't one.

I misunderstood nothing.

You did not ask what the official definition was.

He were talking about traits that are universal to all TMs and thats it.

here are the entire 4 post that brought up the "metalic paint issue.....

Show me where and when you asked for the offical defintion.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Even more Technical,

Really lets see??????

Saber Prime wrote: the one you refer to as his "regular transmetal" isn't a Transmetal figure.

According to Hasbro it is.....and you cant get any more or less "Technical" then the official nameing or lableing from the company.

Saber Prime wrote: It's a repaint of his original form.

For the most part your right.

Some of the early Transmetal figures were just repaints with a metalic pain job on some parts.

But regardless Hasbro labeled them differently as Transmetals.

Saber Prime wrote:However a True Transmetal figure has 3 modes, Beast, Vehicle (or rather something called a Vehicle but just looks like the beast mode with vehicle parts attached), and Robot. The lack of that 3rd mode really dissqualifies him as being a Transmetal.

Completely incorrect.

To begin with its Hasbro that decides what qualifies a toy as being called a "TRANSMETAL" not you.And if we were going by your standards we would have to "disqualify" some of the figures to be called "Transmetals".

Initially the toys sported the same origins for a Transmetal as the show did.....but later a few of the figures released as "Transmetals" by Hasbro did not have a 3rd mode, which means Hasbro expanded on their defintions of a Transmetal.And before you say that its only the ones that showed up in the cartoon that count......Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote: He may of been labled that way but you really wanna argue about a toy only character?

As I just proved there were show characters that were called "Transmetals" and did not have a 3rd mode.

And no matter your personal preference.....the show characters to not stand above those that didnt make it to the show.

Just because a toy didnt get featured in the toon does not mean he doesnt count.

Transformers is more then just a cartoon.

And to sum this up the only characteristic that is universal with Transmetals is a metallic paint job.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And before you say that its only the ones that showed up in the cartoon that count......Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

You missed a part of my original post yet again.

Saber Prime wrote:Transmetal 2 figures don't share many simular qualitys so the repaint could actully pass as a TM2.

You're counting TM2's as normal TMs isn't helping your point.

Yeah, it's true Blackarachnia and Dinobot don't have a 3rd mode. Neither does Cheetor's TM2 and Optimal Optimus has 4 modes but I never said anything about TM2's shareing that same quality as a TM.

So really, there are no Transmetals in the show who don't have that 3rd mode. And the only Transmetals on the show are Optimus Primal, Cheetor, Rattrap, Depthcharge, Megatron, Tarantulas, and Rampage all of which have 3 modes.

And as far as I can tell that one repaint of Spittor is the only Transmetal figure (Not Transmetal 2, Just Transmetal) that doesn't have 3 modes so all that proves is that his packageing was misslabled or Hasbro got lazy on renameing a repaint.

Saber Prime wrote: He may of been labled that way but you really wanna argue about a toy only character?

As I just proved there were show characters that were called "Transmetals" and did not have a 3rd mode.

Nope. They were Transmetal 2's not Transmetals. Not a huge difference in name but there is a huge difference in physical trates and origins.

Transmetals were created via Transwarp exsplosion and yes they do all have 3 modes.

Transmetal 2s (with the exception of Optimus and Megatron) were created with an alien device the Predacon's first used to create the new Dinobot. Cheetor stole the device while it was still active and got exsposed to it. And Blackarachnia took it from Cheetor. All of these characters recived verry different effects from eachother and from a true Transmetal. Dinobot became a skelital robot/dino. Cheetor turned into the uglies cat cyborg in exsistance. And Blackarachnia got lots and lots of armor. Optimus and Megatron got their TM2 forms from the Sparks of the original Optimus and Megatron. Optimus gained a new form with 4 modes and Megatron turned into a Dragon.

Someone once argued that Optimus and Megatron weren't even Transmetal 2's because they weren't created by the same alien device that created the others but they're labled that way and there's nothing else you can really classify them as.

the only characteristic that is universal with Transmetals is a metallic paint job.

And wrong again.

There are two main characteristics. One has allready been said. The other is a more Robotic beast mode and an organic looking Robot mode.

Of course again non of the TM2s share thoughs same traits.

And by your definition of haveing a Metalic paint job and you counting TMs and TM2s as being the same then I guess by your standards TM2 Cheetor is not a Transmetal because he doesn't have a metalic paint job.

So how is you want to rag on me for haveing my own definitions for a Transmetal (especially when they're Hasbro's not mine) but you wanna go and insinuate that Cheetor is not a Transmetal 2 just because he's not Matalic?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:You missed a part of my original post yet again.

Really???Lets see.....

Saber Prime wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Transmetal 2 figures don't share many simular qualitys so the repaint could actully pass as a TM2.

Nope didnt miss it at all

Saber Prime wrote:You're counting TM2's as normal TMs isn't helping your point.

Whos doing that?????

What TM2 did I count as a normal TM????

Saber Prime wrote:Yeah, it's true Blackarachnia and Dinobot don't have a 3rd mode. Neither does Cheetor's TM2 and Optimal Optimus has 4 modes but I never said anything about TM2's shareing that same quality as a TM.

So really, there are no Transmetals in the show who don't have that 3rd mode. And the only Transmetals on the show are Optimus Primal, Cheetor, Rattrap, Depthcharge, Megatron, Tarantulas, and Rampage all of which have 3 modes.

And as I've told you many times....who and what makes it to the show is not a defining factor on what characters fit into which categorizes.

You just listed 7 toys out of the almost 20 to be labeled as Transmetals by Hasbro.

You cant dismiss the others as TM's soly because they didnt make it to the cartoon.

Saber Prime wrote:And as far as I can tell that one repaint of Spittor is the only Transmetal figure (Not Transmetal 2, Just Transmetal) that doesn't have 3 modes so all that proves is that his packageing was misslabled or Hasbro got lazy on renameing a repaint.

Then you cant tell a great deal.

Do a little research and you'll see that there were quite a few TF figures releases with the TM label on them that did not have an actual 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:Nope. They were Transmetal 2's not Transmetals. Not a huge difference in name but there is a huge difference in physical trates and origins.

Not so many differences in physical traits since not all of the TM's did not have a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:Transmetals were created via Transwarp exsplosion and yes they do all have 3 modes.

Nope.

As I said you cant discount those that didnt show up on the toon.

Saber Prime wrote:And wrong again.

Really???? Lets see...

Saber Prime wrote:There are two main characteristics. One has allready been said. The other is a more Robotic beast mode and an organic looking Robot mode.

And again your wrong.

Those traits are not "UNIVERSAL" to all TF's.

TF Claw Jaw and TF Spittor share neather of those traits.

The only trait that is trully universal, and I mean shared by every TM, is that they all have a metallic paint job.

So I'm not wrong buddy.....YOU ARE.

Saber Prime wrote:Of course again non of the TM2s share thoughs same traits.

And by your definition of haveing a Metalic paint job and you counting TMs and TM2s as being the same then I guess by your standards TM2 Cheetor is not a Transmetal because he doesn't have a metalic paint job.

I never counted TM and TM2's as 1 line.

And TM2 Cheetor does have metallic paint on him so your wrong again....unless there's a variant of the figure.

Saber Prime wrote:So how is you want to rag on me for haveing my own definitions for a Transmetal

I'm not raging on you and your welcome to your definitions.

Just dont go saying that they are the true definitions.

Saber Prime wrote: (especially when they're Hasbro's not mine)

There you go again.....those are your definitions not Hasbros.

There are TM figures that dont fit the definitions you posted......I named 2 figures that dis-prove your defintions.

Saber Prime wrote: but you wanna go and insinuate that Cheetor is not a Transmetal 2 just because he's not Matalic?

You must be "Metalic Blind" as well.

TM2 Cheetor has metallic paint apps in both modes.

Saber Prime wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:You're counting TM2's as normal TMs isn't helping your point.

Whos doing that?????

What TM2 did I count as a normal TM????

When I stated all the show Transmetals had 3 modes you replied with this.

Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

So you're only defence that not all Transmetals have 3 modes was 2 characters who aren't even normal Transmetals. They're Transmetal 2s which I said in my post before it didn't share the same qualitys as a normal Transmetal.

So yes you did blantantly ignore part of my post and count Transmetals and Transmetal 2s as being the same.

Saber Prime wrote:Yeah, it's true Blackarachnia and Dinobot don't have a 3rd mode. Neither does Cheetor's TM2 and Optimal Optimus has 4 modes but I never said anything about TM2's shareing that same quality as a TM.

So really, there are no Transmetals in the show who don't have that 3rd mode. And the only Transmetals on the show are Optimus Primal, Cheetor, Rattrap, Depthcharge, Megatron, Tarantulas, and Rampage all of which have 3 modes.

And as I've told you many times....who and what makes it to the show is not a defining factor on what characters fit into which categorizes.

You just listed 7 toys out of the almost 20 to be labeled as Transmetals by Hasbro.

You cant dismiss the others as TM's soly because they didnt make it to the cartoon.

I never really Dissmissed any of them. I only stated that all the Transmetal characters on the show share the same traits. As do the toys if you really pay attention.

The unused Transmetal versions of Rhinox, Airrazor, Waspinator, and Terrorsaur. Allso share the same traits as the characters who were actully on the show. As do many other Transmetals who never made it at all. The whole toy thing really isn't helping you here. Even though they really don't matter as non of were Transmetals in the cartoon they wouldn't help your case weather I counted them as real characters or not.

Saber Prime wrote:And as far as I can tell that one repaint of Spittor is the only Transmetal figure (Not Transmetal 2, Just Transmetal) that doesn't have 3 modes so all that proves is that his packageing was misslabled or Hasbro got lazy on renameing a repaint.

Then you cant tell a great deal.

Do a little research and you'll see that there were quite a few TF figures releases with the TM label on them that did not have an actual 3rd mode.

Again, Transmetal 2 figures do not share the same traits as Transmetals. How about you do a little research and learn the difference between TM and TM2.

Saber Prime wrote:There are two main characteristics. One has allready been said. The other is a more Robotic beast mode and an organic looking Robot mode.

And again your wrong.

Those traits are not "UNIVERSAL" to all TF's.

TF Claw Jaw and TF Spittor share neather of those traits.

Both of which are repaints of Regular Beast Warriors. And BTW I just looked through the web site you linked me to earlier. Thoughs two are the ONLY Transmetals that don't have 3 modes unless you want to count the McDonalds toys.

Take a look for yourself. http://www.tfu.info/subgroup/transmetals.htm

Out of 31 Transmetals 24 have 3 modes, 4 only have 2 mode, and one is actully listed under the wrong group entirely as Optumal Optimus was a Transmetal 2. Chances are he's not the only one they got wrong. There's allso a few McDonalds toys missing from that list. Basically that site isn't even accurate.

Saber Prime wrote:Of course again non of the TM2s share thoughs same traits.

And by your definition of haveing a Metalic paint job and you counting TMs and TM2s as being the same then I guess by your standards TM2 Cheetor is not a Transmetal because he doesn't have a metalic paint job.

I never counted TM and TM2's as 1 line.

Then why did you use two TM2 figures as evidence that not all normal TMs have 3 modes? That's counting them as 1 lines buddy. If you're not counting them as one line then you're just provideing evendence that has absolutly nothing to do with the line you're talking about.

And TM2 Cheetor does have metallic paint on him so your wrong again....unless there's a variant of the figure.

I must of missunderstood. I thought you meant they had to have a Metalic paint job meaning the majarity of their body not just an arm/leg. Allthough that's still a preddy lame standard to go by. The Matalic paint tands to peel off after a while so does that mean when the figure's paint peels it's not a Transmetal anymore?

Saber Prime wrote: (especially when they're Hasbro's not mine)

There you go again.....those are your definitions not Hasbros.

There are TM figures that dont fit the definitions you posted......I named 2 figures that dis-prove your defintions.

Two repaints. And that's two out of 30 from the unreliable site you linked me to in the first place.

BTW It is Hasbro's definition. If Ben's site was still running (one of the show's Animators) I could link you to his definition of what a Transmetal is.

Two repainted figures is not Hasbro's defintion of what a Transmetal is. They're cheap ways to resell the same figures over again as "new toys" and nothing more.

Trying nameing a Transmetal without 3 modes that's not a repaint. And again, Blackarachnia and Dinobot don't count as they're not normal Transmetals and do not share the same traits as a normal Transmetal.

I dont see you asking that question at all.......till more recently anyway.

Saber Prime wrote:That's BS, you don't want to answer because you know you're wrong and the answer would prove you wrong.

Now your acting like a child

You never asked for the offical difference either.

I'm not going to wast my time and look for those post to prove it either.

At best you may have asked my what I thought was the difference but you never asked me for the official difference.

And as I said the descriptions of a TM 2 from the box do not adress the differences between a TM and a TM 2 other then to say they are stronger and such.

Saber Prime wrote:The point plain and simple, is that if non of the toy descriptions match thoughs characters then not only is the show definition the only definition but it allso proves they are not transmetals and there's not one description anywhere that suports them as such.

Hasbro calls them TMs.....thats all the support needed.

Saber Prime wrote:And again, non of that proves me wrong because their lables do not change that definition.

The lables expand the offical definition....and they prove you wrong for dismissing their exsistance.

Saber Prime wrote:That doesn't answer the question and I'm betting there isn't an answer because there isn't a second definition.

It does answer the question....and I never said there was a second writter defintion.

I said the original defintion was expanded to included the re-painted figures that did not have a 3rd mode.

Go ahead and re-read all the post and you'll see thats what I said from the begining.

Saber Prime wrote:Please do.

Here goes...........

TM 2 Blackaracnia box wrote:The evil of Megatron has created a powwerful but unstable technology,unlishing a ferocious new breed of beast:THE TRANSMETAL 2.

Cyber-Organic machines,theseTransformers are infusef with the ultra aggressive tendencies that they struggle to contron.Thisnewest genesis results in Maximal and Predacons that are faster,stronger and more savage than ever before.The clash between science and nature has evolved to the next level:Now,the real chaos begins....

Like I said it doesnt address and real differences...other then being stronger and more pissed off.

I dont see the point of even needing to see this.

Saber Prime wrote:Take my word and belive what?

Your incorrect information

Saber Prime wrote:That I have an opinion?

You didnt post it as an opinion.....if you had we wouldnt be having this convo

Saber Prime wrote: So what is the new offical definition then?

It Hasent been written officially so I cant quote it.

But the fact that 5 figures exist that dont fit the original definition is proof that the original definition no longer fits or applies.

Saber Prime wrote: You're really makeing this more complicated than it needs to be.

That is about the most honest and accurate essetment about me that you have ever made.

I told you a very long time ago that I over Analyze everything.

I really dont know how I was ever allowed to reproduce

Saber Prime wrote: All you have to do to prove your point is answer that question but insted you just wanna dance around it and provide the lables as your only evidence over and over again.

Because as I said over and over again....they are the only evidence needed to prove the original definition no longer exsist.

Just like the plain and simple exsistance of Supergirl and Krypto prove that the calling of Superman the last survivor of Krypton no longer is logical [I'm taliing comics]

So saying that all TM's must have a 3rd mode is also no longer logical because there are 5 figures that are TM's that dont have 3rd modes.

Hasbro may not have written a new definition but they did cast the old one out when they released the 5 figures with out a 3rd mode.

Thats about the best I can explaine it.

If you cant, OR WONT, get it then fine....see things as you want.

I got a seminar on dialysis to get ready for so I need some sleep..

Saber Prime wrote:You're really bad at math. You got 2 out of 30

You must be bad at reading....I got 5 out of 30ish.

I know how many figures I'm talkikg about.

The simple fact is that I may have dismissed 1 as a mistake....2 as Hasbro being stupid..... 3 may be a coincidence.....4 suggest a pattern but 5 is delibrate.

There are 5 figures that dont fit the prestablished definition.

So the definition no longer fits.

Saber Prime wrote:That's a horrible annaligy.

What ever

Saber Prime wrote:For the Spiderman debate that was said by an offical source.

Dude a character in an episode is not an offical source.

And truth be told some story writttrer dont always quilfy as an official source either....but I dont want to get into that kind of debate.

Saber Prime wrote:Even in the Spiderman debate you never gave an offical statement proveing the show wrong.

Actully I did.

About the same type you did.

I linked you to an episode of X-men when they say "mutants are born that way" from X-mens first season.

But you went on to tell me how Marvel changed what it ment to be a mutant in the toon universe with the dialog said in the Spiderman episode.

You even counted the times they made mention of a mutant being made.

Saber Prime wrote:So if anything all your comparison shows is that twice you've made a claim without backing it up.

Very funny but the only thing it really proved is your bad memory.....

Saber Prime wrote:No they are not called Transmetals by Hasbro. They are labled as Transmetals on their boxes. There is a difference.

Hasbro made the boxs....no difference

Saber Prime wrote:
One is an offical writen statement by a person.

Which was written on a box...

Like I said you'll say anything to try to win this debate.

What is written on one box is ok because it helps your debate....but whats written on an other is trash because it hurts your debate.

Grade school tactics at its best.

Saber Prime wrote:You said the definition was wrong when you said I was wrong for useing it.

Nope....a gun doesnt kill the person shooting the gun is the killer.

Information is hardly ever wrong....its the person useing it that is wrong.

Saber Prime wrote:Same thing.

No way in hell is it the same thing.

Talking about traits is not the same as asking for an official statement.

Saber Prime wrote:That's not a definition,

No there not....but they do cast doubt on the original definition

Saber Prime wrote: I'm getting impatiant.

Too bad for you

Saber Prime wrote:You are really bad at math. You have 2 out of 30... I said this allready...

And as I said....your bad with reading.

I have 5 out of 30

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro did what?

Hasbro made the original defintion useless by including 5 figures that dont fit into the deffintion and still calling them TMs.

Saber Prime wrote:That's exactly my point. They don't fit the established critra so therefore they're not Transmetals.

And yet they are because Hasbro says they are.

So wether they fit in the original catagory or not Hasbro says they are TMs.

Which calls into question the original defintion not their inclusion.....because their inclusion came after the original defintion.

Its just like adding to a story......when new info is added it retcons the old to allow for bot to co-exsist.

Its like what I said about the chosen 1 in a earlier post....which you ignored.Its like what I posted above about Superman.

I'll give you an other example....you seem to me like the kind of guy that like the tv show Frasier.

In case your not....the main character Frasier Crane originate on a tv show named "CHEERS".While on that show the character stated a number of times that he was an only child and that he father dies at an early age.

But when the character got a spin off his history was retconed to includes a brother and the fact that he father was still alive.

Granted this was.nt really adressed openly and it was left to us to assume that he lied about his past on "Cheers" [I think they may have hinted twards this] but no offical episode or statement ever adressed the issue. [as far as I know anyway]

But regardless the simple fact that he had a brother retcons the characters past so the both can co-exsist even if the creators dont say it in a statement.

Its the very nature of a continuing story........

So the simple fact that 5 figures were made and released after the offical definition was released.....meaning they were added to the continuing story of Beast wars and transmetals.....retcons the original definition.

Saber Prime wrote:You only have 2

There are 5 figures that dont fit the original deffintion

Saber Prime wrote: and action does not = new definition.

Thats right....it overrides it.

Actions speak louder then words.

It means much more to do something then to talk about it.

Saber Prime wrote:Any amout of boxes, doesn't matter. It's just a word with no new definition attached to it so untill it has a new definition the old one still stands.

Thats not how a continuing story works.....and as a writter you should know that.

Saber Prime wrote:What words am I "clinging to"

The defintions from one box while dismissing the labels of an other.

Saber Prime wrote:There's verry few things where I'd take the box over the cartoon.

The point is you should never take one peace of evidence from one media and apply it to the other media.

Each TF medium is its own.

Dont take a toy box's words and hold it over the toon....each stands alone.

Saber Prime wrote: How about Armada Sparkplug. Again, in the cartoon he was most offten refered to as Leader-1 but then so was Megatron's Mini-con, they can't both have the same name, how would you tell them apart in a conversation?

That would be up to you and to each of us.

I would call him by his toy name but as you said that show kept going back and forth with his name.

On the other hand G1 made a mistake calling the blue tape Rumble on the G1 toon.....and its a provable mistake.

And yet if I was having a conversation about the toon I would call the character Rumble......but if I'm talking about the toys blue tape I call it Frenzy.

Because in the toyline the blue tape was Frenzy.

I use the names that apply in the topic I'm talking about.

I dont take a toon name and useit on the toy just to make myself happy.

I use the propername that apply in the topic at hand.

Saber Prime wrote: Optimus' Mini-con and Megatron's Mini-con?

I've done that.

Saber Prime wrote:The act of murder is not evidence to murder.

True but the act of murder is evidence of murder.

Saber Prime wrote:You can't just say a murdeed happed and submit that as evidence unless you're a witness to it which you're not.

But I can provide the murddered body and a videro tape of the murder taking place....even if the suspect cant be indentified.

Saber Prime wrote:then why did you post a picture of him in his package. You made it seem like there was some significance to the picture while you were talking about some deal going on at KB toys.

Because the offer only applied to figures with the subtital "Battle for the sparks" like the one pictured.

Saber Prime wrote:WORD only one,

Multible figures,Multiple packaging = multiple words

WORDS

Saber Prime wrote: That might be your argument now that you've been proven wrong but that was not your original argument.

Your original argument was that the toy line had a different definition from the shows definition, you were proven wrong.

No...looks like I have to qoute myself again...

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Initially the toys sported the same origins for a Transmetal as the show did.....but later a few of the figures released as "Transmetals" by Hasbro did not have a 3rd mode, which means Hasbro expanded on their defintions of a Transmetal.And before you say that its only the ones that showed up in the cartoon that count......Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

That was my 2nd or 3rd post to you on this topic.

Look it up if you wasnt.

But the fact remains that you need to learn how to read.

You tend to past large sections of things I post and the only reason I can phantom is that your desprate to win an argument.

So again....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD8ma6MCuYY

You havent proved me wrong and you cant.

Saber Prime wrote:Hasbro has said no such thing,

They did....by releaseing the figures

Saber Prime wrote:What the hell are you talking about?

See what I mean???You dont know how to follow a post.

I'm not going to be the one to teach you.

Saber Prime wrote: You've never even mentioned this before or you weren't clear about it.

Yes I was when I said that placeing the repaints in a seprate sub-catagory was evidence that they werent a mistake.

Saber Prime wrote:Pluse at the time I wrote that I wasn't fully aware what the hell trump even ment.

You always claim ignorance as an excuse.

Saber Prime wrote: I'm still not even sure that's actully a word, I was just guessing what it ment based on your useage.

Its a term that gained its popularity in the 90's [at least for me]

It is a "homage" to Donald Trump and it was used mostly in poker and when a conversation required a all knowing powerfull pressence.

I know it sounds stupid

Saber Prime wrote:What part of "new evidence" is hard to understand?

Sorry ....sleepy

Saber Prime wrote:That's not how it works.

Actully it is.

You need to prove my evidence wrong or that its lyeing.

So far all you've done is call my evidence every dirty name in the book....but you havent cast one shread of doubt on the story my evidence is telling.

Because you cant.

Saber Prime wrote: You're supose to provide evidence to a case to prove your case not provide your evidence to prove you have evidence.

Which I did.

My case is that Hasbro expanded the defintion....my 1st wave of evidence is the 5 figures [exhibit A] My second wave of evidence is the packing [exhibit B] next wave of evidence was the crossmarketing of the video tape [exhibit c].

And my circumstantial evidence [exhibit D] was the delibrate placeing of those figures in a new sub-catagory.

You havent casted doubt on their exsistance or on the fact that they were delibrately made.

Saber Prime wrote:I present exhibits B and C two different universe descriptions of what makes a Transmetal and look at that, they're the same.

Actully you only provided 1 example.......the other was posted by "Cyber-Kun".

Dont try to take the credit for someone elses efferts.

And besides the evidence of one universe can not be used to prove or disprove the evidence of an other universe.

Saber Prime wrote:Case closed, I win, can the jurry go home now

In the matter of this little fantasy court case you have here you lost days ago.

You admited as such.

I defeated your argument and even gave you pause.

If you need a refresher let me know.

Case close....you lose....like always.

Here this should be your fav song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut5A_r5iiOg

I'm just kidding but you should really stop trying so hard.....all you ever do is fail.

sto, i love your debates but you are getting dangerously close to insulting with some of the lines you said. don't wanna see you get in trouble.

Name_Violation wrote:sto, i love your debates

Thank you.

Name_Violation wrote: but you are getting dangerously close to insulting with some of the lines you said. don't wanna see you get in trouble.

You think so???

That wasnt really my intent.

If I have I'm sorry.

If you wouldnt mind could you please tel me which you feel were close to insults.

Counterpunch wrote:
Vac-metalization is a process where under vacuum, a specific kind of paint is bonded to the plastic. This process uses an amount of electric curent to create that very shiny surface. This is the kind of stuff you find in the current Henkei toys when people talk about 'chrome'.

Vac-metal is also that crap that flakes off and chips after it's been touched over long periods of time, where metalic paint just doesn't do that.

Wait a minute... does this mean the Henkei figures will be subject to the same flaking and chipping that afflicted the Transmetal toys? Cause that might make me rethink purchasing Cyclonus and Dinobot.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:sto, i love your debates

Thank you.

Name_Violation wrote: but you are getting dangerously close to insulting with some of the lines you said. don't wanna see you get in trouble.

You think so???

That wasnt really my intent.

If I have I'm sorry.

If you wouldnt mind could you please tel me which you feel were close to insults.

Now your acting an A$$
and grow up.

not quite over the line but gettiin there.

just tryn to watch out for you, would hate to se my favorite debater get a warning. then who wold prove people wrong with such accuracy

Name_Violation wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:sto, i love your debates

Thank you.

Name_Violation wrote: but you are getting dangerously close to insulting with some of the lines you said. don't wanna see you get in trouble.

You think so???

That wasnt really my intent.

If I have I'm sorry.

If you wouldnt mind could you please tel me which you feel were close to insults.

Now your acting an A$$
and grow up.

not quite over the line but gettiin there.

just tryn to watch out for you, would hate to se my favorite debater get a warning. then who wold prove people wrong with such accuracy

I dont exactly see it but I guess I can understand how others could take them as insults.

I ment them as saying the tactics he's employing are childish and overly argumentative since he keeps saying my reply was to a question he never asked.

But thanks for the heads up......I'll make the appropriate edits.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:I don't have to look at the Pictures, I have the toy. The gold is no more metalic looking than the grey.

Cheetor has metalic gold paint. Look at the difference.

I've seen the difference...and like I said your mixing "chromed" with metallic.

Look at TM2 Cheetors silver parts on his tail.

That Silver is metallic as Silverbolts Gold is.

I'll check a picture later. I don't have the show accurate version of Cheetor pluse I have no idea where his tail is.

Saber Prime wrote:even if that's true how does that exsplain his being temporarily weakened right after long enough for Quickstrike (in controll of Optimal Optimus) to overpower him.

I thought I went into this but maybe I lost something after loseing part of my post.

I dont need to explain it because I dont dispute it.

I agree with you on that..
He was weakened like Primal was.

I'm not diputing that they has some simular aftereffects.

I'm just discussing the few differences.

What differences? I will admit it's POSSIBLE there were some differences that we couldn't see but from what we did see it looked like they were verry simular.

Saber Prime wrote:Primal was thrown half way across the Ark when he first took Prime's spark inside him. You call that being able to controll it without a problem?

I ment controling the spark before he put it inside of him.

G1 Megatrons spark was uncontrolable the second it was set free.

Sorry for the mix up.

I allready exsplained that part. Granted it's only my opinion but it's a possible reason for why that happened differently.

Optimus Primal never physically held Prime's spark, he held the Matrix.

Megatron held his name sakes spark with a tenticle that came from his own spark chamber.

So the way I see it there's 2 reasons for that difference.

1. The fact that Primes Spark was contained at all times and never free floating.

2. The fact that Megatron had a hold of his name sakes Spark with a part of his Spark Chamber it could of technically been considered as inside him. Basically he may not of had the same problem if he was useing his hands.

It could allso be a combination of the abouve.

Saber Prime wrote:Tarantulas was the only one present outside the ark when Megatron emerged from the Lava so what are you talking about "both of them".

I was typeing while I was watching something else.

I slipped and got a bit mixxed up.

But the point of that part was I believe the events that took place took longer then the events with Primal.

How much time do you would have taken place it the events were real???

I thought I gave my opinion on this allready but maybe I didn't.

It seemed to me like there was alot more happening durring Primal than Megatron's so I belive if any of it took longer it was Primal.

Saber Prime wrote: where Primal did not but I belive that's because Primal had the Matrix in his hands

But we both know from a story stand point....that was not intended to be the matrix.

True but for lack of anything better to call it I'm still going to refer to it as such.

Saber Prime wrote:And BTW you did bring up the Volcano when I mentioned the Vok which sugests you were implying the Vok are responcible for the volcano being there in the first place.

You misunderstood why I brought up the Volcano.

I had not intention to link them to the volcano....I was trying to suggest that Megatron final TM 2 form may have been more influanced by the volcano then the merging of 2 sparks.

Not as a point for a debate but just to bring up the idea.

You brought up the idea long before that though and I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up again.

Saber Prime wrote:Again, by your reasoning a BLACK ENERGON Unicron in ARMADA packageing must be ORANGE because the BOX says so.

Which is a poor compaison because I doubt it says anywhere on the box "Black Unicron" or "Orange Unicron".

Not in words no but I didn't say anything about words.

I was refering to the box art depicting an image of a character in a different color than the one inside the box.

And not a poor compairson. You're makeing your makeing your argument with only toy boxes suporting it claiming whatever the box says is the absolute right when it really isn't. About 75% of all the boxes Transformers come in have the wrong information on them.

Either the toy is from the wrong line, has the wrong name, has a completly different color sceme than the box art, has a biography that doesn't fit the character, or some combination of the abouve.

That simple fact alone tells me that toy packageing should be the absolute LAST source you check for any Transformers related information.

TV and Comics would be sourses I can belive. Boxes, are garbage, and nothing more than that.

Saber Prime wrote:Despite what the box says on any Transformer, nothing has been said to suport thoughs lables.

There doesnt need to be.

Yes there does for all the reasons I listed abouve, if the box isn't suported by a second source then the box is garbage.

Show me a comic book character that's a Transmetal and doesn't have a 3rd form. I'll accept that as evidence. The box of a toy only character just isn't going to prove anything. The box of any character isn't going to prove a damn thing. Boxes are even less reliable than wiki.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transmetal_2

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transmetal

incase they're needed

also

tf wiki wrote:The defining characteristics of the Transmetal line are the chrome-like finish featured on much of the toys' surfaces, and semi-vehicular "third modes". Aesthetically, the toys are smoothly contoured, with more bestial features revealed in robot mode.

Saber Prime wrote:I'll check a picture later. I don't have the show accurate version of Cheetor pluse I have no idea where his tail is.

I'm not sure why you would even have too.

Silver,Gold,Copper are 99% of the times always metalic.

Saber Prime wrote:What differences?

In what we were shown, in the time that transpirred,in how the spark reacted in BW Megatrons hands [tentacle] as apposed to how the same events happened to Primal.

I know the differences are minor but I wanted to talk about them.

Saber Prime wrote: I allready exsplained that part. Granted it's only my opinion but it's a possible reason for why that happened differently.

Optimus Primal never physically held Prime's spark, he held the Matrix.

And I already explained that part.....that was not the Matrix as far as the story was conserened so the Matrix has no bearing on this dission.

Saber Prime wrote:1. The fact that Primes Spark was contained at all times and never free floating.

Contained.......might explain it thou

Saber Prime wrote:2. The fact that Megatron had a hold of his name sakes Spark with a part of his Spark Chamber it could of technically been considered as inside him. Basically he may not of had the same problem if he was useing his hands.

It could allso be a combination of the abouve.

I'm supprised you left out the most obvious........G1 Megatron was insane and so was his spark.

And I dont mean "insane" as with Galvatron [after the movie] but I mean he was just so evil that even his spark would be hard to contain.

Saber Prime wrote:I thought I gave my opinion on this allready but maybe I didn't.

It seemed to me like there was alot more happening durring Primal than Megatron's so I belive if any of it took longer it was Primal.

Yes you said this........but I'm asking you how much time you feel actully past if the situation were real in Megatrons case......but forget it because I forgot why I even asked.

Saber Prime wrote:True but for lack of anything better to call it I'm still going to refer to it as such.

How bout container thingiy

Saber Prime wrote:You brought up the idea long before that though and I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up again.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bringing it up Again" but I hope you at least understand what I ment now.

Saber Prime wrote:Not in words no but I didn't say anything about words.

But "words" have been the focal point of this debate.

Saber Prime wrote:And not a poor compairson. You're makeing your makeing your argument with only toy boxes suporting it claiming whatever the box says is the absolute right when it really isn't. About 75% of all the boxes Transformers come in have the wrong information on them.

It is a poor comparison for a few reasons

1] the Unicron issue is a well known mistake....if your going to try to compair both you have to be ready to prove the Transmetals issue is also a mistake....and good luck with that.

2] Box art/picture differences are not errors....its the very nature that the art itself would be styalised and not a true repersentation of the toy and there's a disclaimer on every box siteing that the picture on the box may not match the toy in the box.The toy pictured is normaly a prototype and paints apps and molds are sometimes altered before the final product is released

3] my argument is not supported alone by a box but by the actions that lead to that box being printed, again I point out....

A: the deliberate repainting of 2 figures to better match the TM line
B:the deliberate labeling
C:the deliberate placeing then in a separate sub-group
D:the deliberate cross marketing or related merchandise [the video]
And E: the deliberate creating and marketing of the Mc Donalds TM figures

And I believe your estimate is wrong.....I would say that about 25 to 35 % of TF box's have errors on them.

Saber Prime wrote: has a biography that doesn't fit the character,

The shows have been known to change the characters to their likeing.....I dont even know who you could even say that these issues could be a mistake from Hasbro.

Saber Prime wrote:That simple fact alone tells me that toy packageing should be the absolute LAST source you check for any Transformers related information.

The simple fact that Transformers is first and foremost a "TOYLINE" would indicate the opposite.

The toon and the comics are vehicles to bolster sales from the toys.......and thats as true today as it was back in G1.

But unlike you I'm not suggesting we take the toys version of the story and apply it to the other 2 branches of the fiction of TF's.

I say each stands on its own merits....use the shows definitions as it applys to the show but dont try to impose the shows definitions on the toys or the comics.......

Because its almost always doomed to fail.

Saber Prime wrote:TV and Comics would be sourses I can belive. Boxes, are garbage, and nothing more than that.

And as I said....thats fine for you and your personal way of seeing things.

But when you post something using your personal judgment about what is a trustworthy source with out siteing its your opinion your going to invite this type of debate.

You may not believe of follow the toy's version of the fiction but many do.

Saber Prime wrote:Yes there does for all the reasons I listed abouve, if the box isn't suported by a second source then the box is garbage.

The second source would be the Mc.Donals figures.

And lets not forget that even Optimal Optimus was called a TM and he had "MORE" then 3 modes.

Even that would start to expand on the original definition of a TM.

The simple fact is that the original definitions and toy bios are also a form of fiction.

They are a story,a narrative....and as such they are ,by nature, a continuing developing and evolving story.

And open to change and expansion by any actions that are a result of adding to the story.

Hasbro did such when they named the repaints TM....they also did such when they released the McD's figures.

Saber Prime wrote:Show me a comic book character that's a Transmetal and doesn't have a 3rd form. I'll accept that as evidence.

What would be the point?????

Eveything else you asked me to prove you dismissed.....like you always do.If it doesnt help your argument you claim it doesnt count or its a mistake.....you'll say anything and dismiss everything that goes against your argument other then admit that your in error.

And even if I cant provide a comic character for you it wouldnt matter......as I've said many many times........on this debate and others each branch of the TF multiverse stands on its own.

What may be true for the comic may not be true for the toyline or the show.

And thats stands all the way around.Each branch has its own version of events, each is its own universe....even when events are similar they are not the same.

It doesnt matter if it is or is not in the comics because it is in the toyline.....the toyline's fiction does not need evidence from the comic or toon universs to validate it.

I'll still look to see if "ANY" of these characters ever made it to a comic in TM mode.

Not that it really matters if you personally accept it as evidence or not.

Hasbro says that they are TM's wether you like it or not.

So your opinion on whats acceptable evidence is not required.

Saber Prime wrote: The box of a toy only character just isn't going to prove anything.

It proves that Hasbro says they are TM's.

again you have to live with it......you'll sleep better .

Saber Prime wrote: The box of any character isn't going to prove a damn thing.

They have and always will.

You need to get past it because thats not going to change.

Hasbro owns the rights to call and label these toys anything they want.

Saber Prime wrote: Boxes are even less reliable than wiki.

I thought you were a dramatic actor not a comedian.

Even with mistakes a Hasbro box is 100% more reliable then wiki

And just for the record ,nothing I said here was ment to be rude, I wasnt trying to say your opinion doesnt count or is un-imporant.....just that its not a defining rule for what Hasbro can and can not do with the TF brand.

Name_Violation wrote:http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transmetal_2

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transmetal

incase they're needed

also

tf wiki wrote:The defining characteristics of the Transmetal line are the chrome-like finish featured on much of the toys' surfaces, and semi-vehicular "third modes". Aesthetically, the toys are smoothly contoured, with more bestial features revealed in robot mode.

Thanks for your input.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote: I allready exsplained that part. Granted it's only my opinion but it's a possible reason for why that happened differently.

Optimus Primal never physically held Prime's spark, he held the Matrix.

And I already explained that part.....that was not the Matrix as far as the story was conserened so the Matrix has no bearing on this dission.

Yes it does and I allready exsplained why. Weather or not it was actully the Matrix has nothing to do with the conversation. I'm calling it the Matrix for lack of a better name and no other reason.

It's not the Matrix itself that makes the difference it's the fact that it contained Prime's spark.

G1 Megatron's spark was free floating when it was removed from his body which could be another reason BW Megatron was strugleing with it. He was holding the Spark and nothing else.

Prime's spark was never free floating and Primal never held it outside his body. What Primal was holding was the Matrix and the Matrix was holding Prime's spark.

Again, you're focusing too much on one aspect of what I'm saying and missing the point entirely. I'm talking about the fact that Prime's spark wasn't free floating because of it not weather or not it is or isn't the Matrix. I know it isn't but it's the only name I know to call it where you know what it is I'm refering to. It doesn't matter what it is, the only thing that does matter is that it was holding Prime's spark, not Primal.

Saber Prime wrote:2. The fact that Megatron had a hold of his name sakes Spark with a part of his Spark Chamber it could of technically been considered as inside him. Basically he may not of had the same problem if he was useing his hands.

It could allso be a combination of the abouve.

I'm supprised you left out the most obvious........G1 Megatron was insane and so was his spark.

And I dont mean "insane" as with Galvatron [after the movie] but I mean he was just so evil that even his spark would be hard to contain.

So was BW Megatron so why would that make a difference. And BW Megatron I'd say was even more insaine or evil than G1.

Saber Prime wrote:True but for lack of anything better to call it I'm still going to refer to it as such.

How bout container thingiy

It's just easier to call it the Matrix. You still know what I'm talking about just keep in mind it's only a name, I'm not in any way refering to it as if it actully were the Matrix.

Saber Prime wrote:You brought up the idea long before that though and I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up again.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bringing it up Again" but I hope you at least understand what I ment now.

What's not to understand about "bringing it up again"? You brought up the Volcano twice in this topic. The time after I talked about the Vok was the second time you mentioned the Volcano in this disscussion. The first time I agreed with you the second time because of what you responded to and the way you responded it seemed like you were sugesting a link between the Vok and the creation of Volcanos on Earth.

You said you didn't bring it up for that reason but the reason you did bring it up was for the same reason you mentioned it the first time where I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up that second time when it was something that...

A. Had allready been discussed.

B. Had nothing to do with the current conversation or the quote it was in reply to.

Saber Prime wrote:Not in words no but I didn't say anything about words.

But "words" have been the focal point of this debate.

Really? I thought toy boxes were.

Saber Prime wrote:That simple fact alone tells me that toy packageing should be the absolute LAST source you check for any Transformers related information.

The simple fact that Transformers is first and foremost a "TOYLINE" would indicate the opposite.

The toon and the comics are vehicles to bolster sales from the toys.......and thats as true today as it was back in G1.

But unlike you I'm not suggesting we take the toys version of the story and apply it to the other 2 branches of the fiction of TF's.

I say each stands on its own merits....use the shows definitions as it applys to the show but dont try to impose the shows definitions on the toys or the comics.......

Because its almost always doomed to fail.

I can't belive you're still refering to it as a show only definition when it's allready been proven that same definition was allso used in the toy line by Cyber-Kun.

And you are right about one thing, it is a toy line first but sence when do toy lines have story lines or plots attached to them?

Toys by themselfs are whatever the hell the child playing with them wants them to be. Toy companies don't have any say or controll in how their toys are used, they just make them.

The story comes from the TV shows and comic books that promote thoughs toys. Not the boxes they come in. Like I said, boxes are trash, not evidence. Unless there's a second source to back up the information on the box, any information on the box is surcumstantial.

Saber Prime wrote:Yes there does for all the reasons I listed abouve, if the box isn't suported by a second source then the box is garbage.

The second source would be the Mc.Donals figures.

Thoughs are still toys, not a second source.

And lets not forget that even Optimal Optimus was called a TM and he had "MORE" then 3 modes.

Either he or Dragon Megatron was misslabled. I belive it most likely was Optimal Optimus. Unless you can prove Dragon Megatron is allso a Transmetal and not a Transmetal 2 then you're useing a misslabled figured as evidence.

Saber Prime wrote:Yes it does and I allready exsplained why. Weather or not it was actully the Matrix has nothing to do with the conversation.

Actually it does because when you use the proper name of a person, place or thing it should be exactly what were talking about.

Saber Prime wrote: I'm calling it the Matrix for lack of a better name and no other reason.

Then you should say "the think that looked like the matrix"

Althou I dont know why your getting so defensive......I was joking with these replys

Saber Prime wrote:Prime's spark was never free floating

Not exactly true.....it did free float for about a second before it was placed back in the "Matrix Looking" container.

Saber Prime wrote: and Primal never held it outside his body.

True

Saber Prime wrote: What Primal was holding was the Matrix and the Matrix was holding Prime's spark.

Lets not go over that again

Saber Prime wrote:Again, you're focusing too much on one aspect of what I'm saying and missing the point entirely.

Again I'll say it.....I'm not sure why your so defensive over this but since you brought it up.

I focus on the words used...if you want some one to understand you clearly, and catch your meaning and your point then you should chose your words more clearly and precisely so that there's no chance of a misunderstanding.

You like to go on about how well I should know you by now.....well thats a two way street.You know how technical and precise I can get about proper names and terms.....particularly when its something we both know better.

If you know its not the Matrix I dont see why you would continue to call it such when "container" or even "the think that looks like the Matrix" would better fit the conversation.

But forget it....this is pointless.

Saber Prime wrote: So was BW Megatron so why would that make a difference.

Why wouldnt it????

If you put two nuts in 1 room its not like they cancel each other out.

To put it in an other way.....The Joker may have a hard time holding down Two face.

Saber Prime wrote: And BW Megatron I'd say was even more insaine or evil than G1.

No way.....more evil yes but he was a different type of insane...BW Megs was so much smarter and reserved and logical....that kind of insanity would have a hard time containing G1 Megs kind.

Saber Prime wrote:It's just easier to call it the Matrix.

I dont think so.....but your welcome to your way of thinking.

Saber Prime wrote:What's not to understand about "bringing it up again"? You brought up the Volcano twice in this topic. The time after I talked about the Vok was the second time you mentioned the Volcano in this disscussion. The first time I agreed with you the second time because of what you responded to and the way you responded it seemed like you were sugesting a link between the Vok and the creation of Volcanos on Earth.

You said you didn't bring it up for that reason but the reason you did bring it up was for the same reason you mentioned it the first time where I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up that second time when it was something that...

A. Had allready been discussed.

B. Had nothing to do with the current conversation or the quote it was in reply to.

I dont feel like looking up the post to justify why I brought it up again.......it seem rather pointless since I already said there may have been a mix up.

But since when were you appointed the ruler of when a discussion has ended....maybe I felt the idea could be elaborated on.

Boy your so argumentative.

Saber Prime wrote:Really? I thought toy boxes were.

No it was the "WORDS" on the toy boxes.

Saber Prime wrote:I can't belive you're still refering to it as a show only definition when it's allready been proven that same definition was allso used in the toy line by Cyber-Kun.

Because that original definition no longer fits the toyline.....and that is because of deliberate actions undertaken by Hasbro.

Saber Prime wrote:And you are right about one thing, it is a toy line first but sence when do toy lines have story lines or plots attached to them?

For quite some time now.

As a matter of fact I believe it started in the late 70's and early 80's althou it may have been earlier.

It was the the very reason Hasbro went to Marvel comics to create the GI Joe unverse and the TF universe as well.

Action figures sell better if a narrative is attached......and the Phenomenon that TF became is proof of that.

Saber Prime wrote:The story comes from the TV shows and comic books that promote thoughs toys.

In the case of G1 your definitely wrong since the narrative was written for the toyline first....it was then expanded for a comic and then a toon.

And from everything I've read about the production of Beast Wars the same holds true.

The toys came first and they they built the story around them....but at least this time it was intended to do a show at about the same time.

Saber Prime wrote: Not the boxes they come in. Like I said, boxes are trash, not evidence. Unless there's a second source to back up the information on the box, any information on the box is surcumstantial.

Wait for it........

Saber Prime wrote:Thoughs are still toys, not a second source.

Toys and their boxes are all the evidence you need when the debate is about the toyline.

I've already told you that evidence from the comics or toon has no bearing on a toy debate.

Saber Prime wrote:Either he or Dragon Megatron was misslabled.

I knew it was coming.......plain and simple there's no evidence either were mislabeled.

They may have been.....and I may sleep with Jessica Alba.

Untill you can say that either Optimal or Dragon Megs was mislabled....they stand as evidence of fact.

Saber Prime wrote: I belive it most likely was Optimal Optimus. Unless you can prove Dragon Megatron is allso a Transmetal and not a Transmetal 2 then you're useing a misslabled figured as evidence.

Unless you can prove they were mislabeled you cant claim that they were.

Thats like punishing a man for a murder you cant prove he committed.

So unless you can prove either was mislabeled you've lost.

Now for my finally....

Do you remember these words.......

Saber Prime wrote:Show me a comic book character that's a Transmetal and doesn't have a 3rd form. I'll accept that as evidence.

If you dont here they are again........BIGGER

Saber Prime wrote:Show me a comic book character that's a Transmetal and doesn't have a 3rd form. I'll accept that as evidence.

Well here you go........

These are from 2008 IDW official Beast Wars Sourcebook.




This is Blackaracknia's bio

As you can see her "TRANSMETAL FORM" is listed seprated from her TM2 form.If you look at the bottom of the page her Transmetal form is refranced but not pictued.....its a safe bet they are talking about the Mc Ds toy mold.

Granted its not evidence on its own but its suggestive as you will soon see......



This is Dinobot 2 bio [its the second page of Dinobot as a whole]

As you can see his "TRANSMETAL FORM" is listed separated but the form pictured is called a TM2 body in the bio.If you look at the bottom of the page his Transmetal form is refranced but not pictued.....its a safe bet they are talking about the Mc Ds toy mold.

Granted its not evidence on its own but its suggestive as you will soon see......



Now we get to where all the suggestive parts come together.The 2 mentioned but not pictured above were 2 of the 3 characters to get a Mc Donals Transmetals figure.

And here's the 3rd........

Here's Scorponk's bio.

As you can see its what you would expect from his bio....



But do we see here on his second page???????

It looks like a artist rendition of his Mc Donalds toy.......BECAUSE IT IS.



Its his Transmetal Form from the Mc,Donals mold.

It shares the basic color scheme and is called his "Transmetal Form".

here's a close up of the written section



And how does it describe his TM form????......could you read it?????

If you cant I'll type it for you......

Transmetal Scorponk wrote:
TRANSMETAL FORM:

The Quantum Surge that rocked Earth following the destruction of the Planetbuster knocked "Scorponk"into a pool of lava alomg with Terrprsaur.Both presumed destroyed.The truth,though was that both became Stasis Locked by the simultaneous impact of the wave and lava.When he awoke, after Megatron's departure from Earth, Scorponk's body had evolved into a TRANSMETAL form.Unlike most TRANSMETALS,though, he did not gain an additional mode.However, he did gain the ability to fly via hover fans integrated into his beast form and thrusters built into his legs.His physical strength increased exponentially, and some believe it currently rivals that of Megatron himself, in addition to his Cyber-Sting, Scorponk fires a flammable gel from his tail that attaches to an enemy ignites.

Do you see the words in bold......here they are again.

"Scorponk's body had evolved into a TRANSMETAL form".

Unlike most TRANSMETALS,though, he did not gain an additional mode

Do you see it.....here's the second source you asked for....thou I'm sure you'll find some way to wiggle out of it again.

And again its irrelivent to the debate since its from a comic.....each branch of the brands fiction stands on its own.

The toylines bios's do not need a comic book or a cartoon to substantiate it.

Not every toyline gets a comic or a cartoon.But the fictions written in the character bios are just as relivent to that toylines fictional universe as the stories told in each toon..

Each history,each continuity,each universe stands on its own.

And by the way when the Beast Wars SourceBook comic's were co-written and all facts researched by your "ALL MIGHTY BEN YEE so I guess that means he thinks a Transmetal is not defined by having a 3rd mode.



Thats right....your Ben Yee says in this book that TM Scorponk is in fact a Transmetal with out a 3rd mode.

Thats your fingerprints buddy....your evidence.....the one and only point you had going for your argument..... saying that I'm right.

So what do you have to say about that???

I'm sure it will be something like.....the comic said it not Ben.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Initially the toys sported the same origins for a Transmetal as the show did.....but later a few of the figures released as "Transmetals" by Hasbro did not have a 3rd mode, which means Hasbro expanded on their defintions of a Transmetal.And before you say that its only the ones that showed up in the cartoon that count......Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

All true Transmetals have third modes. Transmetal IIs, like you mentioned above, don't. TMs and TM2s are different things.

Badass Grimlock wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Initially the toys sported the same origins for a Transmetal as the show did.....but later a few of the figures released as "Transmetals" by Hasbro did not have a 3rd mode, which means Hasbro expanded on their defintions of a Transmetal.And before you say that its only the ones that showed up in the cartoon that count......Transmetal 2 Blackarachnia, who was featured on the show, did not have a 3rd mode.

And the Transmetal 2 clone of Dinibot also did not have a 3rd mode.

All true Transmetals have third modes. Transmetal IIs, like you mentioned above, don't. TMs and TM2s are different things.

Not all Transmetals have a 3rd mode.

Read the post above yours and you'll see my final proof.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Saber Prime wrote:Prime's spark was never free floating

Not exactly true.....it did free float for about a second before it was placed back in the "Matrix Looking" container.

I don't see what the relivence of the Spark being returned had to do with anything. By that time Primal was alot stronger than when it was removed. There's allso that scene of Primal returning G1 Megatron's spark before returning to Cybertron and he was even able to hold G1 Megatron's spark easier than BW Megatron did.

Saber Prime wrote:Again, you're focusing too much on one aspect of what I'm saying and missing the point entirely.

Again I'll say it.....I'm not sure why your so defensive over this but since you brought it up.

I focus on the words used...if you want some one to understand you clearly, and catch your meaning and your point then you should chose your words more clearly and precisely so that there's no chance of a misunderstanding.

You like to go on about how well I should know you by now.....well thats a two way street.You know how technical and precise I can get about proper names and terms.....particularly when its something we both know better.

If you know its not the Matrix I dont see why you would continue to call it such when "container" or even "the think that looks like the Matrix" would better fit the conversation.

But forget it....this is pointless.

I can't seem to find the quote when I even called it the Matrix but I do belive I had in Parenthises (I know it's not the Matrix but for lack of a better name I'm still going to refer to it as such.) next to my first use of the word.

Saber Prime wrote: So was BW Megatron so why would that make a difference.

Why wouldnt it????

If you put two nuts in 1 room its not like they cancel each other out.

To put it in an other way.....The Joker may have a hard time holding down Two face.

And you put this after telling me I need to be more clear. I honestly have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't understand what relivence Joker and Two-Face have to this conversation.

That all seemed rather random.

Saber Prime wrote: And BW Megatron I'd say was even more insaine or evil than G1.

No way.....more evil yes but he was a different type of insane...BW Megs was so much smarter and reserved and logical....that kind of insanity would have a hard time containing G1 Megs kind.

BW Megatron was known to take baths with rubber ducks and pet his beast mode head as if it were a pet in robot mode. That kinda screams insaine to me. Megatron never seemed insaine untill after being turned into Galvatron and Unicron's destruction.

Saber Prime wrote:What's not to understand about "bringing it up again"? You brought up the Volcano twice in this topic. The time after I talked about the Vok was the second time you mentioned the Volcano in this disscussion. The first time I agreed with you the second time because of what you responded to and the way you responded it seemed like you were sugesting a link between the Vok and the creation of Volcanos on Earth.

You said you didn't bring it up for that reason but the reason you did bring it up was for the same reason you mentioned it the first time where I had allready agreed with you so I don't understand why you brought it up that second time when it was something that...

A. Had allready been discussed.

B. Had nothing to do with the current conversation or the quote it was in reply to.

I dont feel like looking up the post to justify why I brought it up again.......it seem rather pointless since I already said there may have been a mix up.

But since when were you appointed the ruler of when a discussion has ended....maybe I felt the idea could be elaborated on.

Boy your so argumentative.

I'm not the one starting one argument after another. Right now you got 3 arguments going on with me all at once which is one of the main reasons my last couple of posts have been so short.

Saber Prime wrote:And you are right about one thing, it is a toy line first but sence when do toy lines have story lines or plots attached to them?

For quite some time now.

As a matter of fact I believe it started in the late 70's and early 80's althou it may have been earlier.

It was the the very reason Hasbro went to Marvel comics to create the GI Joe unverse and the TF universe as well.

Action figures sell better if a narrative is attached......and the Phenomenon that TF became is proof of that.

That wasn't exactly what I asked you.

You claimed that TV, comics, and TOYS were all seperate universes. When asked when toys had their own story and plot lines you talked about the COMICS.

I really don't know how accurate this is because I don't read comics but I have heard that the toy bios on some toys are based on their comic interpretations. So if that is true and the non-show characters who are suposidly Transmetals are really Transmetals then they could have comic counterparts backing that story.

Saber Prime wrote:Thoughs are still toys, not a second source.

Toys and their boxes are all the evidence you need when the debate is about the toyline.

I've already told you that evidence from the comics or toon has no bearing on a toy debate.

1. No you've never said that before.

2. The debate isn't about a toy line. It's about the definition of a word made up. Transmetal, and the fact that there is only 1 offical definition for that word and you're saying there's another definition but you have not shown anything saying what that other definition is.

Saber Prime wrote:Either he or Dragon Megatron was misslabled.

I knew it was coming.......plain and simple there's no evidence either were mislabeled.

They may have been.....and I may sleep with Jessica Alba.

Untill you can say that either Optimal or Dragon Megs was mislabled....they stand as evidence of fact.

Of course there's evidence. They were both ment for the same toy line, they were both from the same season, they both have the same origin. Plain and simple they are both the same in every way. Either they're Transmetals or they're Transmetal 2s. One of them is with out a doubt misslabled.

And without quoteing the last part. It looks like you FINALLY found evidence besides the toy boxes that suport you. So fine, they don't have to have a 3rd mode in general but as for show characters, they still do.

Saber Prime wrote:I don't see what the relivence of the Spark being returned had to do with anything.

Just to bring it up.....nothing else.

Saber Prime wrote:I can't seem to find the quote when I even called it the Matrix but I do belive I had in Parenthises

If you did I didnt notice....so if you did I'm sorry.

Saber Prime wrote:And you put this after telling me I need to be more clear. I honestly have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't understand what relivence Joker and Two-Face have to this conversation.

That all seemed rather random.

The revelence is as such....

I believe that G1 Megs spark was too crazy to control.....you believe that since BW Megs was just as [if not more] crazy then G1 Megs he should have been able to control it.

My point is that its not logical to assume that just because BW Megs was crazy then he would be able to control the crazyness of G1 Megs.

Saber Prime wrote:BW Megatron was known to take baths with rubber ducks

Not a sing of insanity

Saber Prime wrote: and pet his beast mode head as if it were a pet in robot mode.

This might be

Saber Prime wrote: That kinda screams insaine to me.

We all have our opinions

Saber Prime wrote: Megatron never seemed insaine untill after being turned into Galvatron and Unicron's destruction.

I would disagree.

I believe that Megatron believeing some of those lame plans would work is a brand of insanity.

Saber Prime wrote:I'm not the one starting one argument after another.

Actully you are.....as the continuing argument about the "volcano and why I brought it up again" proves.

But what ever

Saber Prime wrote: Right now you got 3 arguments going on with me all at once which is one of the main reasons my last couple of posts have been so short.

You see them all as arguments....proving my point.

Saber Prime wrote:That wasn't exactly what I asked you.

It sure seemed like it

Saber Prime wrote:You claimed that TV, comics, and TOYS were all seperate universes.

Correct

Saber Prime wrote: When asked when toys had their own story and plot lines you talked about the COMICS.

When did I do that????

I said that its been at least since the 80's that toys had a plot line and a story.

Its not my fault that it was Marvel Comics that created it.

Saber Prime wrote:I really don't know how accurate this is because I don't read comics but I have heard that the toy bios on some toys are based on their comic interpretations.

The G1 toy bios and back stories were written first.......but soon after the comics were written useing the toy bios and back story as refrance.

Saber Prime wrote: So if that is true and the non-show characters who are suposidly Transmetals are really Transmetals then they could have comic counterparts backing that story.

Beast Wars is a bit different since the comics were made after both the toyline and the toon were done.

But there are comic Transmetals with out a 3rd mode.

Saber Prime wrote:1. No you've never said that before.

Yes I have and you know it......and this proves your either being argumentitive or your just desperate to win a debate.

I've said all along that each branch of the fiction should be messeured and judged on its own [altho in different words]

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:It doesnt matter if it is or is not in the comics because it is in the toyline.....the toyline's fiction does not need evidence from the comic or toon universs to validate it.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:What may be true for the comic may not be true for the toyline or the show.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:as I've said many many times........on this debate and others each branch of the TF multiverse stands on its own.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I say each stands on its own merits

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Each media for TF stands on its own merits.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:But doesnt matter if they have hudge differences in their origins of just one minor detail......each origin is media specific and stands on its own merits.

I could go further back to prove my point but I dont want waste my time

Saber Prime wrote:2. The debate isn't about a toy line. It's about the definition of a word made up.

And how it is applied to each universe.

You claimed that the use of the word in the show was the only correct one when you claimed that the re-paints and the McD's figures werent "real" transmetals because they dont have a 3rd mode.

I said they were still TMs because the toyline's defintion has a been expanded to include them by Hasbro.

That made this a debate about the toyline.

And ultimately this is the reason why we get into these kind of debates so often.

You say something as if it apply universally......as if 1 + 1 always ='s 2 no matter the subject at hand.And the fact is that 1 + 1 does not always equate to 2.

You end up crossing facts from different universes with out even knowing if the same rules and facts apply.

Let me try to say that clearer.....you end of saying something that is "SOMETIMES" true but not "ALWAYS" true.....with out siteing the source that the info is true for.

And then you try to pass that "Sometimes true" info as if its "ALWAYS TRUE".

Here's basically what you say....lets pretend the subject is fruits.........here is what you end up saying "Fruits are sweet"......which would sometimes be true but not always since there are fruits that are sweet and others that are bitter.

You make comments assuming that the info you have or your opinion applys to the question universally when it almost never does.

Saber Prime wrote:Of course there's evidence.

None that can be proven????

Saber Prime wrote: They were both ment for the same toy line, they were both from the same season, they both have the same origin.

That may all be suggestive but its not evidence.Plain and simply Hasbro may have chosen to lable them they way they did on perpose.

Saber Prime wrote: Plain and simple they are both the same in every way.

There are some differences....mainly that Primal became a quad former.....which could explain why he was placed in a different catagory.

Optimal Optimus also had an electronic feature

Size is also a difference.

Saber Prime wrote: One of them is with out a doubt misslabled.

Nope there's plenty of doubt.

And you have yet to give one peace of evidence that either or 1 was mislabled.

You sited your opinions on why you think they were....but what you think is not evidence......even if its logical.

Saber Prime wrote: And without quoteing the last part. It looks like you FINALLY found evidence besides the toy boxes that suport you.

As I called it........
Once AGAIN YOU WIGGLE OUT WITH OUT ADMITTING YOUR WRONG

I provided evidence from the begining.....relivent evidence to the relivent topic.

When siteing the toyline the only evidence I needed to provide was a box or label from Hasbro.....I provided 5.

Since I was talking toys I did not need an outside source to back up my claim.

Saber Prime wrote: So fine, they don't have to have a 3rd mode in general but as for show characters, they still do.

Even thats debatable.....if you want to know why just ask.